Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-25 Thread Gene Heskett
On Sunday 25 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote: >On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote: >> I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it [...] >> Can we have a patch to address this? Or should I just hardcode it >> since it will never be linked to any other later

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-25 Thread Con Kolivas
On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote: > I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it doesn't > update the version.h available in > /lib/modules/2.6.20-ck1/source/include/linux to include the -ck1 in the > reported kernel version when trying

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-24 Thread Gene Heskett
ly to 2.6.20 >http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/2.6.20/2.6. >20-ck1/patch-2.6.20-ck1.bz2 > >or server version >http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/2.6.20/2.6. >20-ck1/patch-2.6.20-cks1.bz2 > >web: >http://kernel.kolivas.o

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-24 Thread Fabio Comolli
don't pay a lot of attention to benchmarks. Responsiveness under load is much important to me. But this is nice: I use FC6 with initng as boot process manager. With vanilla 2.6.20 boot process takes 21 to 23 seconds; with 2.6.20-ck1 (same config, of course), boot process takes 17 to 19 second

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-18 Thread Ryan M.
d for 30 seconds Benchmarking kernel 2.6.20-ck1 at datestamp 200702180758 --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated --- LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met None 0.002 +/- 0.002420.005 100100 Video

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Rodney Gordon II
6.20 > > > > > > any benchmarks for 2.6.20-ck vs 2.6.20? > > > > Would some -ck user on the mailing list like to perform a set of interbench > > benchmarks? They're pretty straight forward to do; see: > > > > http://interbench.kolivas.org > >

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Rodney Gordon II
list like to perform a set of interbench > benchmarks? They're pretty straight forward to do; see: > > http://interbench.kolivas.org > > -- > -ck Here are some benches comparing 2.6.18-4-686 (Debian sid stock) and 2.6.20-ck1-mt1 (2.6.20-ck1 + sched-idleprio-1.11-2.0.patch) I

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Con Kolivas
34.1 Memload1.11 +/- 1.59 15.3 98.9 Using 2392573 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds Benchmarking kernel 2.6.20-ck1 at datestamp 200702181542 --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated --- LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Con Kolivas
mdew . writes: On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace. Apply to

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread mdew .
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace. Apply to 2.6.20 any ben

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Con Kolivas
Radoslaw Szkodzinski writes: On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high: orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful. Yes, the

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Radoslaw Szkodzinski
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high: orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful. Yes, they were. Now, it's an extremely

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Con Kolivas
Andrew Morton writes: On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote: ... > But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch, > has an on-off switch. > ... Do you still want this patch for mainline?.

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > ... > > But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch, > > has an on-off switch. > > > > ... > > Do you still want this patch for mainline?... Don't

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread michael chang
On 2/17/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for > > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. > > Plus they worry incessantly that my p

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Con Kolivas
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for > > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. > > Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious > > machines' perform

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Chuck Ebbert
Con Kolivas wrote: > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. Plus > they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious machines' > performance... > But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_ca

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread michael chang
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote: > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall. > > I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can > see, this

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-17 Thread Hugo Vanwoerkom
Con Kolivas wrote: This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace. このカーネルは立派だと思いますよ Running well. Thanks Con, gre

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Con Kolivas
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote: > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall. > > I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can > see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enligh

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread michael chang
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall. I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me if I'm wrong.) Has anyone tried booting a kernel with the

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Con Kolivas
On Saturday 17 February 2007 11:53, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch > > I like it. Thanks :-) > Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged? See the last paragraph here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/112 I'm thru with bashing my head again

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Chuck Ebbert
Con Kolivas wrote: > mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch I like it. Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordom

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Edouard Gomez
you were hesitating announcing as the final 2.6.20-ck1 when i asked you. Good to see reviews allowed you spotting the bug. -- Edouard Gomez - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at htt

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Edouard Gomez
Working well at home and at work. It fixed the problems i had at work with hard lockups when leaving the box idling on night and getting back the day after. It also fixed some freezes i had when working on a repository converter for mercurial, the convertion process used to be damn slow with pre1

Re: 2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Malte Schröder
On Friday 16 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote: > This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and > interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch > is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on > serverspace. Running well on quite d

2.6.20-ck1

2007-02-16 Thread Con Kolivas
/2.6/2.6.20/2.6.20-ck1/patch-2.6.20-ck1.bz2 or server version http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/2.6.20/2.6.20-ck1/patch-2.6.20-cks1.bz2 web: http://kernel.kolivas.org all patches: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/ Split patches available. Full