vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

brain0 · 2006-07-25 19:26:36

Hey people,

I have started using the beyond kernel a while ago, because I wanted a precompiled arch kernel with suspend2 support. I used self-compiled vanilla+suspend2 kernels for a while before that, and they were very stable. With beyond, I first got strange bugs, hard to reproduce, suspending or resuming sometimes failed, and the newest version doesn't work at all.

Just for some testing, I compiled a kernel with the same config and patches as kernel26 AND suspend2 patches included. It seems to work great, much stabler than beyond when suspending.

What I am asking is, how many people would be interested if such a kernel would be maintained in community and what kernel modules they would need (I am planning to do rt2500, rt2x00, nvidia and maybe ATI, more if requested).

Please only submit your vote to the poll if you are either a suspend2 user or interested in using suspend2

curana · 2006-07-25 19:45:37

I am not using the suspend2 feature for the moment and also I am not using the beyond-kernel. But now, I dont know why I dont

So, I want to have this suspend2 feature as there are cool features in the list (compression, pre-empty etc). I want to have a precompiled kernel with suspend2 patch included (I am quite lazy and want my system to be updated via pacman AUTOMATICALLY )

So, please help and offer it

Yes, with ATI and Intel IPW2200 BG support , also Bluetooth, ASUS-features...
Keep me up to date about ur plans!

brain0 · 2006-07-25 19:54:18

curana wrote:

Yes, with ATI and Intel IPW2200 BG support , also Bluetooth, ASUS-features...
Keep me up to date about ur plans!

The module question only concerns kernel modules that are not part of the vanilla kernel, but supplied as separate packages in archlinux. ipw2200 is in-kernel, as well as bluetooth. But ATI is on my list

djpharoah · 2006-07-25 19:57:10

I am currently using a custom patchset which includes these patches:

vesafb-tng
swsusp-rework-memory-shrinker-rev-2
usb-mouse-polling
suspend2-2.2.7-2.6.17
linux-phc-0.2.5-2.6.17
usb-suspend

However if some of these patches made it into your vanilla+suspend patches then I would definitely use it. I have used emission-sources which was recently submitted to AUR and it needs a bit tweaking on the suspend front.
This would be similar to a kernel I once used in my former distro called suspend2-sources.

Btw, the modules to build would be against your kernel would be ati,nvidia and madwifi. Nothing else comes to mind.

Keep us posted.

brain0 · 2006-07-25 20:01:56

djpharoah wrote:

I am currently using a custom patchset which includes these patches:
vesafb-tng
swsusp-rework-memory-shrinker-rev-2
usb-mouse-polling
suspend2-2.2.7-2.6.17
linux-phc-0.2.5-2.6.17
usb-suspend

My intention is to keep this kernel "as vanilla as possible". I suspect two patches in particular to have caused trouble with suspend2 in beyond, which is a) the -ck patch and b) the vesafb-tng patch. One of my kernel panics was almost definitely caused by vesafb-tng as far as I can remember from the output.
So the answer to your question is: Unless I am absolutely certain that another patch won't break anything, I won't add anything but the suspend2 patch, and I definitely will not add the vesafb-tng patch. The reason I am planning to do this is that I want the stability back on my laptop, even with 20 or 30 supend/resume cycles (which I had no trouble with in my pre-beyond days).

djpharoah · 2006-07-25 20:04:50

brain0 wrote:

djpharoah wrote:
I am currently using a custom patchset which includes these patches:
vesafb-tng
swsusp-rework-memory-shrinker-rev-2
usb-mouse-polling
suspend2-2.2.7-2.6.17
linux-phc-0.2.5-2.6.17
usb-suspend
My intention is to keep this kernel "as vanilla as possible". I suspect two patches in particular to have caused trouble with suspend2 in beyond, which is a) the -ck patch and b) the vesafb-tng patch. One of my kernel panics was almost definitely caused by vesafb-tng as far as I can remember from the output.
So the answer to your question is: Unless I am absolutely certain that another patch won't break anything, I won't add anything but the suspend2 patch, and I definitely will not add the vesafb-tng patch. The reason I am planning to do this is that I want the stability back on my laptop, even with 20 or 30 supend/resume cycles (which I had no trouble with in my pre-beyond days).

Sounds good. I guess I am willing to forgo some features to get back the stability of resuming , like you said, more than 10 times in one day without any issues.

btw what would you call the kernel? also other than vesafb-tng what other patch arent you comfortable with?

brain0 · 2006-07-25 20:35:18

djpharoah wrote:

Sounds good. I guess I am willing to forgo some features to get back the stability of resuming , like you said, more than 10 times in one day without any issues.
btw what would you call the kernel? also other than vesafb-tng what other patch arent you comfortable with?

It would be called kernel26suspend2 (plus module names like nvidia-suspend2, ati-fglrx-suspend2 and so on). I am in general uncomfortable with any patch other than the ones that tpowa uses for kernel26 and pure driver fixes. Any patch that goes deeper in the base structure of the kernel is likely to break something again.

djpharoah · 2006-07-25 20:45:51

brain0 wrote:

djpharoah wrote:
Sounds good. I guess I am willing to forgo some features to get back the stability of resuming , like you said, more than 10 times in one day without any issues.
btw what would you call the kernel? also other than vesafb-tng what other patch arent you comfortable with?
It would be called kernel26suspend2 (plus module names like nvidia-suspend2, ati-fglrx-suspend2 and so on). I am in general uncomfortable with any patch other than the ones that tpowa uses for kernel26 and pure driver fixes. Any patch that goes deeper in the base structure of the kernel is likely to break something again.

I agree. Infact this kernel would be a blessing in disguise - I would stop tweaking around and causing my own problems.

/me longs to suspend and resume without any issues again....

dtw · 2006-07-25 23:13:51

I think this is a waste of time and energy propogated by a lack of patience. Do you really want to go to all this trouble, maintain what is in essence a very small but new kernel patchset and all the relevant modules _just_ because suspend2 is a broken in -beyond at the moment? My Dog, I wish I had such time to spend.

Admittedly suspend2 may be _generally_ unstable with other patchsets but even still, it'll only take one bulletproof release to invalidate all you are suggesting.

Still, the choice is yours, but as you are asking for opinions there's mine

djpharoah · 2006-07-25 23:17:12

dtw wrote:

I think this is a waste of time and energy propogated by a lack of patience. Do you really want to go to all this trouble, maintain what is in essence a very small but new kernel patchset and all the relevant modules _just_ because suspend2 is a broken in -beyond at the moment? My Dog, I wish I had such time to spend.
Admittedly suspend2 may be _generally_ unstable with other patchsets but even still, it'll only take one bulletproof release to invalidate all you are suggesting.
Still, the choice is yours, but as you are asking for opinions there's mine

makes sense... but I have noticed that alot of the newer patchsets have never come to the same stability that I got from only have a stock kernel patched with suspend2-swap patch.

brain0 · 2006-07-25 23:40:06

dtw wrote:

I think this is a waste of time and energy propogated by a lack of patience. Do you really want to go to all this trouble, maintain what is in essence a very small but new kernel patchset and all the relevant modules _just_ because suspend2 is a broken in -beyond at the moment? My Dog, I wish I had such time to spend.

Can you give me your definition of "at the moment" please? Or better, name a beyond release where suspend2 was stable. I switched to beyond with 2.6.16 and since then it was always unusable for me. With a vanilla kernel, suspend2 hasn't failed for me in a year or so. With beyond, it failed every time I really needed it.

Admittedly suspend2 may be _generally_ unstable with other patchsets but even still, it'll only take one bulletproof release to invalidate all you are suggesting.

I won't spend the rest of my life waiting for the beyond release that will work. I'd rather do something about it and provide a kernel that is stable and has that very important feature. (And as tpowa wasn't willing to include suspend2 in kernel26 when I asked him, this is the best shot).

djpharoah · 2006-07-26 00:11:34

brain0 wrote:

dtw wrote:
I think this is a waste of time and energy propogated by a lack of patience. Do you really want to go to all this trouble, maintain what is in essence a very small but new kernel patchset and all the relevant modules _just_ because suspend2 is a broken in -beyond at the moment? My Dog, I wish I had such time to spend.
Can you give me your definition of "at the moment" please? Or better, name a beyond release where suspend2 was stable. I switched to beyond with 2.6.16 and since then it was always unusable for me. With a vanilla kernel, suspend2 hasn't failed for me in a year or so. With beyond, it failed every time I really needed it.
Admittedly suspend2 may be _generally_ unstable with other patchsets but even still, it'll only take one bulletproof release to invalidate all you are suggesting.

I won't spend the rest of my life waiting for the beyond release that will work. I'd rather do something about it and provide a kernel that is stable and has that very important feature. (And as tpowa wasn't willing to include suspend2 in kernel26 when I asked him, this is the best shot).

Awesome - I dont think I could have said it in better words - however I did try above >

I have tried many patchsets that had suspend2=swap patches but the never worked or not as well as a vanilla kernel with just suspend2-swap patch.

Lets do it.

stonecrest · 2006-07-26 00:36:04

I would definitely try it, although I don't have much faith that my laptop is capable of suspending well in linux yet. But for all I know, it's the same -beyond problem that I'm running up against..

It'd also be great to have a ndiswrapper-suspend2 package, but I won't hold my breath

Phrodo_00 · 2006-07-26 01:43:27

missing option: I don't use suspend2, even though I'm using beyond.

brain0 · 2006-07-26 07:16:07

Phrodo_00 wrote:

missing option: I don't use suspend2, even though I'm using beyond.

No, please READ. I explicitly stated that only people using suspend2 or interested in suspend2 should participate in the poll. I am not interested in anything else.

allucid · 2006-07-26 07:43:09

What would be cool is a custom kernal system you could use to select what patches you want and it would download them for you and apply them to a vanilla kernel and then build it (or copy your previous .config and drop you into 'make oldconfig' would be what I would prefer). Of course, you would have to somehow handle patch errors (roll back last patch?), and it would be hard to make this automagic, and this would probably be a script, not an arch package. So...

Yes. I would use the vanilla+suspend2 kernel since that's what I manually do now.

fk · 2006-07-26 10:44:46

I think it is a good idea. I use a custom vanilla Kernel + suspend2 patch, I would give this Kernel a try.

djpharoah · 2006-07-26 10:52:21

@brain0

Seems enough are interested. Why not start production? I could take care of the ati-fglrx and madwifi drivers too.

Mr Green · 2006-07-27 19:28:42

What about a kernel Factory.... ?

with so many patch sets options .. settings etc...

I run stock because if I had to compile kernel every ten minutes, would be better off running Gentoo ;-(

Pre-built is cool... only ever tried beyond (or archck!) once had no problem with it...

ck patch sets just rocks!!!!

this suspend stuff is that more for lappy users? what is the advantage of using it if any?

speed for me was never an issue .... Arch is the fastest distro I know

Now if someone says to me Gentoo is faster then I would say that its not true because you will always be compiling stuff so your box will run very very slow...

I have used Gentoo the most pain I ever had using Linux

/me boots ubuntu nooooooooooo!!!!!!!

curana · 2006-07-27 19:33:32

Mr Green wrote:

What about a kernel Factory.... ?
with so many patch sets options .. settings etc...

Ever heard of "make xconfig"? Wow, even graphical!!

Mr Green · 2006-07-27 19:44:21

ok ..... lol ... yeah

curana · 2006-07-27 19:46:07

@Mr Green: "Wow, Dude, so many trees...where is - where is the forest??"

Good night...

djpharoah · 2006-07-27 20:47:08

any progress on this?

djpharoah · 2006-07-30 14:31:51

....

curana · 2006-07-30 14:36:24

djpharoah wrote:

....

What does this mean? Maybe a little patience would be great for this hot weather.

A wise man wrote:

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-07-25 19:26:36

vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#2 2006-07-25 19:45:37

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#3 2006-07-25 19:54:18

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#4 2006-07-25 19:57:10

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#5 2006-07-25 20:01:56

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#6 2006-07-25 20:04:50

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#7 2006-07-25 20:35:18

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#8 2006-07-25 20:45:51

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#9 2006-07-25 23:13:51

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#10 2006-07-25 23:17:12

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#11 2006-07-25 23:40:06

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#12 2006-07-26 00:11:34

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#13 2006-07-26 00:36:04

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#14 2006-07-26 01:43:27

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#15 2006-07-26 07:16:07

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#16 2006-07-26 07:43:09

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#17 2006-07-26 10:44:46

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#18 2006-07-26 10:52:21

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#19 2006-07-27 19:28:42

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#20 2006-07-27 19:33:32

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#21 2006-07-27 19:44:21

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#22 2006-07-27 19:46:07

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#23 2006-07-27 20:47:08

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#24 2006-07-30 14:31:51

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

#25 2006-07-30 14:36:24

Re: vanilla kernel with suspend2 support

Board footer