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
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
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
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
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
/2.6/2.6.20/2.6.20-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
27 matches
Mail list logo
