Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

Mr. Alex · 2013-11-26 14:46:46

Hello Archers.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-bfs/ was last updated in May of this year and I wonder if the package is abandoned. Does anyone know will there be new releases?

karol · 2013-11-26 14:55:11

Ask on the AUR page of that package or e-mail the maintainer.

Is linux-ck a viable option for you? The ck patches include BFS.

[pfkernel] unofficial repo has some nice packages too e.g. linux-pf 3.11.4-1.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Un … positories

$ pacman -Si linux-pf | grep Description
Description    : Linux kernel and modules with the pf-kernel patch [-ck patchset (BFS included), TuxOnIce, BFQ] and aufs3.

Last edited by karol (2013-11-26 14:57:17)

clfarron4 · 2013-11-26 20:20:02

I would go for another package which already includes BFS if I were you, as @karol suggested.

Mr. Alex · 2013-11-29 18:00:51

karol wrote:

Is linux-ck a viable option for you? The ck patches include BFS.

I know about "-ck" and even tried it out. Didn't like the experience though — the kernel worked even slower than with CFS. And when I was using "linux-bfs", it felt significantly quicker than vanilla.

So "-ck" < CFS < BFS.

graysky · 2013-11-29 18:10:40

Mr. Alex wrote:

I know about "-ck" and even tried it out. Didn't like the experience though — the kernel worked even slower than with CFS. And when I was using "linux-bfs", it felt significantly quicker than vanilla.
So "-ck" < CFS < BFS.

No, the above notation is a falsehood; when based on non-interactivity endpoint, this is probably more accurate:

CFS < BFS=ck1

>98 % of the ck1 code is the BFS code. There are only a few minor tweaks to ck1 compared to "just" BFS in modern incarnations. This wasn't always the case. Several versions ago, ck1 had many older patches which CK himself removed. See for yourself by downloading each patchset and diffing them.

EDIT: Here is the link describing this change: http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2013/07/bfs … x-310.html which happened this past July:

Con Kolivas wrote:

After careful consideration, I've decided to remove the remaining -ck patches and just make the -ck patchset BFS with some extra default config options and the -ck tag. As I've said previously, those other patches were from long ago, the kernel has changed a lot since then, and I've been unable to confirm they do anything useful any more, whereas there have been reports of regressions with them.

So, ck1=BFS more or less. BTW, have you seen the tests I ran comparing CFS to ck1? http://repo-ck.com/bench/cpu_schedulers_compared.pdf

Links to 3.12-series patches:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/3.0/3 … -443.patch
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/3.0/3.12/ … 12-ck1.bz2

Last edited by graysky (2013-11-29 18:41:15)

sitquietly · 2013-11-29 22:00:07

graysky wrote:

.....BTW, have you seen the tests I ran comparing CFS to ck1? http://repo-ck.com/bench/cpu_schedulers_compared.pdf.....

I missed that until now. Thanks. Very nice work Mr. Gray Sky!

Mr. Alex · 2013-11-30 08:32:15

graysky wrote:

BTW, have you seen the tests I ran comparing CFS to ck1? http://repo-ck.com/bench/cpu_schedulers_compared.pdf

I have now. Thanks for your work.

Installed "-ck" kernel today, trying it out. Feels pretty much like BFS so far. If you watch YouTube with CFS and click "fullscreen" button, it takes a while to go fullscreen. With BFS patch it happens instantly. That is what I look at to see first difference.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-11-26 14:46:46

Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#2 2013-11-26 14:55:11

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#3 2013-11-26 20:20:02

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#4 2013-11-29 18:00:51

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#5 2013-11-29 18:10:40

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#6 2013-11-29 22:00:07

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

#7 2013-11-30 08:32:15

Re: Is "linux-bfs" package dead?

Board footer