On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:03:39 -0700
stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in order to allow all six
cores to be used, it limits the total amount of usage to 100% of a
*single* core.
Booting from a Knoppix live DVD works. All six cores are utilized
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:03:45 -0400
Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also run (after doing the config and patching):
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=$(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN) INSTALL_MOD_STRIP=1
make rpm-pkg sudo yum install
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-4.0.0-rc4-1.x86_64.rpm
Thanks. I'll try
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:56:34 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
That's really complicated, baah :-)
It seems complicated, but with the screen template, it's almost habit.
I don't even have to think about it.
I tried the bfs patch on rc4 of the 4.0 kernel, but it got these errors:
On 18.03.2015, stan wrote:
How do you remove the old kernels so that they don't pile
up indefinitely? Manually?
Yes. Just delete the related files in /boot and the sourcetree in /usr/src.
Or does this automatically replace the last
version that was compiled and installed this way?
No.
On 18.03.2015, Tom H wrote:
You don't need to run make as root.
Yes, as I already stated. Only the install of the modules and the kernel itself
has to be done as root.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:53:33 -0400
Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org
wrote:
CFS is not required at all, and so are cgroups. Any kernel with the
BFS patch applied will run just fine on Fedora. In fact, most of
the time I run a
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:52:23 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
Lucky? The machine was fully unusable.
Yes, but you have full control of your machine.
Yes, this machine is on F21.
[htd@chiara ~]$ uname -a
Linux chiara.fritha.org 3.19.2-rc1-bfq #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Mar 16
16:16:07
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:52:23 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
Directly from source.
Would you be willing to give a recipe that you use?
i.e. what steps do you perform to do this?
There is a vanilla source tree included in the fedora src.rpm for the
kernel, so maybe I could use
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:34:08 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
Borislav, can you help explain the man why this is happening with his
Piledriver.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-6300.html
poma
Thanks, poma.
--
users mailing list
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:52:23 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
This is the top output when compiling a kernel with -j8 (4 cores/8
threads):
top - 18:47:16 up 9:07, 4 users, load average: 1.77, 0.39, 0.13
Tasks: 263 total, 10 running, 253 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu0
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:01:35 -0700
stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
Heinz, what does cat /proc/cgroups show?
Should have included this in my response:
$ cat /proc/cgroups
#subsys_namehierarchy num_cgroups enabled
cpuset 2 1 1
cpu 3 1 1
On 18.03.2015, stan wrote:
Heinz, what does cat /proc/cgroups show?
[htd@chiara ~]$ cat /proc/cgroups
#subsys_namehierarchy num_cgroups enabled
cpuset 2 1 1
memory 3 1 1
devices 4 74 1
freezer 5 1 1
net_cls 6 1 1
blkio
On 18.03.2015, stan wrote:
An afterthought. I notice that you are compiling the kernel as root. I
do my build in the rpmbuild system as a user, so the compile is run as a
user. Do you think that would matter?
For the kernel to get properly installed, you have to be root. Precisely, there
On 18.03.2015, stan wrote:
Would you be willing to give a recipe that you use?
i.e. what steps do you perform to do this?
1. Download a kernel tarball from kernel.org
2. Unpack it into /usr/src
3. Copy .config from the latest Fedora kernel into the kernel toplevel
sourcedir (it is stored
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:34 PM, stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
Here's my Fedora rpmbuild procedure:
I go to koji, the fedora central build repository for package
maintainers, and download the src.rpm.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8
I use rpm to
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
On 17.03.2015, Tom H wrote:
I don't know what the difference is between not compiling cgroup
suppport into the kernel and compiling it in but disabling all
controllers but it looks like that your assumption that cgroup
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:53:33 -0400, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
CONFIG_CGROUPS (it is OK to disable all controllers) is listed under
REQUIREMENTS in the systemd README.
I don't know what the difference is between
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
On 18.03.2015, stan wrote:
An afterthought. I notice that you are compiling the kernel as root. I
do my build in the rpmbuild system as a user, so the compile is run as a
user. Do you think that would matter?
For the
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:19:54 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
1. Download a kernel tarball from kernel.org
2. Unpack it into /usr/src
3. Copy .config from the latest Fedora kernel into the kernel toplevel
sourcedir (it is stored in /boot).
4. make oldconfig
5. make
6. make
On 17.03.2015, Tom H wrote:
I don't know what the difference is between not compiling cgroup
suppport into the kernel and compiling it in but disabling all
controllers but it looks like that your assumption that cgroup support
isn't required is wrong.
Thanks for pinting this out!
You are
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:19:54 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
1. Download a kernel tarball from kernel.org
2. Unpack it into /usr/src
3. Copy .config from the latest Fedora kernel into the kernel toplevel
sourcedir (it is stored in /boot).
4. make oldconfig
5. make
6. make
On 17.03.2015, stan wrote:
Lucky you!
Lucky? The machine was fully unusable.
Are you using F21? Which kernel?
Yes, this machine is on F21.
[htd@chiara ~]$ uname -a
Linux chiara.fritha.org 3.19.2-rc1-bfq #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Mar 16 16:16:07 CET
2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
It's a
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
On 17.03.2015, stan wrote:
I think cgroups are integrated into Fedora, and so the CFS with
cgroup is required. Thus, BFS will probably not work in Fedora,
as it has no support for cgroups.
CFS is not required at all, and
On 17.03.2015, stan wrote:
I think cgroups are integrated into Fedora, and so the CFS with
cgroup is required. Thus, BFS will probably not work in Fedora,
as it has no support for cgroups.
CFS is not required at all, and so are cgroups. Any kernel with the BFS patch
applied will run just
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:56:37 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/3.0/3.18/3.18-sched-bfs-460.patch
(BFS is designed with latency in mind, not throughput).
By significant workaround and patching in kernel/sched, I was able to
compile a kernel without
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:05:37 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
On 09.03.2015, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
Just a minor clarification: when compiling, the -j flag should
point to a unit above your available cores in order to fully
utilize all of them.
Curious what would happen, I
On 09.03.2015, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
Just a minor clarification: when compiling, the -j flag should point to a
unit above your available cores in order to fully utilize all of them.
Curious what would happen, I remembered this mail when compiling a new kernel
today. A nice -n 19 make -j
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:20:27 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
It depends on the machine used and the amount of processes.
While cgroups limit more than just CPU power, you could
try with BFS (which does not use cgroups).
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/3.0/3.19/
Thanks for
On 12.03.2015 20:40, stan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:21:06 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
Both:
1. diff
-u /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64
/boot/config-3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64
2. dmidecode (as root)
to http://fpaste.org s'il vous plaît.
1 week
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:36:43 +
Ian Malone ibmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Since I can't reproduce this problem I'm not sure what's causing it.
If you really are finding make subprocesses limited to 100% cpu across
the lot then maybe have a look to see if there are any cgroups limits
active
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:21:06 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
The Devil is in the detail.
Both:
1. diff
-u /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64
/boot/config-3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64
2. dmidecode (as root)
to http://fpaste.org s'il vous plaît.
You seem to be the
On 03/12/2015 03:40 PM, stan wrote:
Are you sure you don't want to know what I had for breakfast today? :-D
No! That's what Facebook is for! B^)
--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjch...@verizon.net
cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net
cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232
On 03/12/2015 01:54 PM, Kevin Cummings wrote:
On 03/12/2015 03:40 PM, stan wrote:
Are you sure you don't want to know what I had for breakfast today? :-D
No! That's what Facebook is for! B^)
Article tagline from the Orange County Register this morning:
A study co-authored by a
On 12.03.2015, stan wrote:
When I build firefox nightly with -j6, just at the end of the export
phase, and before the compile starts, I see all 6 cores maxed out.
Once the compile starts, it is back to a single core equivalent. The
Gentoo users seemed to suggest that this was a flaw in the
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:21:06 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
Both:
1. diff
-u /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64
/boot/config-3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64
2. dmidecode (as root)
to http://fpaste.org s'il vous plaît.
1 week
http://fpaste.org/197315/88936142/
The config
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:14:39 -0400
Kevin Cummings cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net wrote:
We're thinking in terms of one machine with multiple cores here. What
about an environment with multiple machines (each possibly with
multiple cores). Now you have *many* more possibilities of where to
run
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
ergodic g...@embarqmail.com wrote:
Frankly I never check the loading, just use -j with no argument,
but I always do other processes in parallel with no problem.
Then I think you must be having the same behavior as me. Because, as
Ian found, if a
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:36:43 +
Ian Malone ibmal...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to check the .NOTPARALLEL directive is not present
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Parallel though I
think that would simply prevent multiple processes.
This sounded like exactly the
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:56:37 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
Haven't looked into this for some time, but take a look into
/usr/src/linux/kernel/sched/fair.c.
(The CFS code is complex and difficult to understand, though - at
least for me).
Took a quick look at this. Only ~8000
On 12.03.2015, stan wrote:
So, cgroups seem like another dead end.
It depends on the machine used and the amount of processes.
While cgroups limit more than just CPU power, you could
try with BFS (which does not use cgroups).
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/3.0/3.19/
--
users mailing list
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:32:09 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
1. You still haven't provided basic information about the processor,
thus 'lscpu' or a similar command.
$ lscpu
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit
Byte Order:Little Endian
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:34:25 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
I just tried a simple make on an 8-core machine. There was exactly
one compile process, and it's 100% load was distributed over 3 cores.
So nothing wrong with that one. If you run 100% on one core or 100%
distributed
On 9 March 2015 at 19:03, stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
I'm running Fedora 21 with a custom compiled kernel,
3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64.
I have a multi core system with 6 cores. All are recognized by the
kernel.
But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in order to allow all
On 11.03.2015, stan wrote:
What is the point of -j6 or -j8 if the make
can't spawn additional processes with their own limits, and thus take
advantage of more resources that are available?
The point is simply that you can exactly determine how many processes should be
used.
What is it that
On 03/11/2015 11:49 AM, stan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:34:25 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
It's the limiting to one process which causes what you observe. 1
process can not get more resources that 100%. The CPU scheduler
handles how they are distributed.
I think this is
On 11.03.2015, stan wrote:
I don't see why this is necessary. The system is showing 470%
idle. So the kernel cpu scheduler shouldn't need to limit the job to a
single core maximum usage.
I just tried a simple make on an 8-core machine. There was exactly one
compile process, and it's 100%
On 11.03.2015 16:32, stan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:32:09 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
1. You still haven't provided basic information about the processor,
thus 'lscpu' or a similar command.
$ lscpu
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit
On 09.03.2015, stan wrote:
But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in order to allow all six cores
to be used, it limits the total amount of usage to 100% of a *single*
core. So, it might use all six cores, but the sum of the percentages
on those six cores is always around 100% of one core.
Wouldn't be better to use -j with no argument?
The make manual states:
If the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit
the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.
- Original Message -
On 09.03.2015, stan wrote:
But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in
On 10.03.2015, ergodic wrote:
Wouldn't be better to use -j with no argument?
It's a matter of taste. I compile my kernels with a nice value of 19 (lowest
priority), because mostly I have to do other work while compiling a new
kernel.
I've never tried -j. How many processes does it open on you
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:35:24 +0100
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
On 09.03.2015, stan wrote:
But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in order to allow all six
cores to be used, it limits the total amount of usage to 100% of a
*single* core. So, it might use all six cores, but the
Frankly I never check the loading, just use -j with no argument,
but I always do other processes in parallel with no problem.
- Original Message -
On 10.03.2015, ergodic wrote:
Wouldn't be better to use -j with no argument?
It's a matter of taste. I compile my kernels with a nice
Ah... couldn't tell, but the Gentoo wiki and Arch's one (in a lesser
extent), are excellent resources to learn everything about that!
HTH
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:30:57 -0300
Martin Cigorraga martincigorr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:03:39 -0700
stan stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net wrote:
This is from htop output.
Correction. *atop* output.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code
Hello Stan,
Just a minor clarification: when compiling, the -j flag should point to a
unit above your available cores in order to fully utilize all of them.
I'm sure you already know this, but nevertheless beware when doing
intensive compilation and using all your cores as you might end with a
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:30:57 -0300
Martin Cigorraga martincigorr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Stan,
Just a minor clarification: when compiling, the -j flag should point
to a unit above your available cores in order to fully utilize all of
them.
I'm sure you already know this, but nevertheless
56 matches
Mail list logo
