omg! Con Kolivas is back!

bangkok_manouel · 2009-12-31 10:51:37

Primoz wrote:

After so much trouble I'm saddened to say that my ck kernel is worse than normal arch kernel...
I don't know what exactly it is, I suspect the scheduler or something. As it caches more memory and it also uses more CPU...
But I think this was done by me in kernel configuration...

you should try bfs313 or -ck2, check this out:
http://lwn.net/Articles/368264/

Primoz · 2009-12-31 11:12:00

bangkok_manouel wrote:

Primoz wrote:
After so much trouble I'm saddened to say that my ck kernel is worse than normal arch kernel...
I don't know what exactly it is, I suspect the scheduler or something. As it caches more memory and it also uses more CPU...
But I think this was done by me in kernel configuration...
you should try bfs313 or -ck2, check this out:
http://lwn.net/Articles/368264/

AFAIK none of this are in AUR, yet (I've seen your post about uploading kernel26-ck2, but I can't find it on AUR). So I guess I should recompile my kernel?
I'll definitely think about it...

bangkok_manouel · 2009-12-31 11:14:47

i meant uploaded by con. it's here: http://users.on.net/~ckolivas/kernel/pa … 32-ck2.bz2
so yes, you should rebuild your kernel.

Primoz · 2009-12-31 11:34:36

Thanks, I'll consider it. Maybe next year

Fackamato · 2009-12-31 13:07:56

Primoz wrote:

After so much trouble I'm saddened to say that my ck kernel is worse than normal arch kernel...
I don't know what exactly it is, I suspect the scheduler or something. As it caches more memory and it also uses more CPU...
But I think this was done by me in kernel configuration...

Those things are good. What are you really complaining about? More RAM in use = good. Is your computer more or less responsive with the ck kernel? That's what it's about.

Primoz · 2009-12-31 16:43:49

Fackamato wrote:

Primoz wrote:
After so much trouble I'm saddened to say that my ck kernel is worse than normal arch kernel...
I don't know what exactly it is, I suspect the scheduler or something. As it caches more memory and it also uses more CPU...
But I think this was done by me in kernel configuration...
Those things are good. What are you really complaining about? More RAM in use = good. Is your computer more or less responsive with the ck kernel? That's what it's about.

You're right. But I don't see any big difference. It's not any faster... I think it's the problem that bangkok_manuel described...
Also with all that it really doesn't feel anything more responsive, if anything it feels slower... (But I have to make a real test...)

TemplarGR · 2009-12-31 17:42:11

I tried it and despite the provocative name it really isn't any faster. I noticed much higher cpu usage percentages and responsiveness was the same as before. Probably a placebo effect for most people. I went back to stock.

bangkok_manouel · 2009-12-31 17:52:47

definitely not placebo, there have been quite a few benchmarks on LKML demonstrating BFS efficiency. even without benchmarking, i can easily witness this by playing 1080p videos with a 965GM, which is a near-death-experience with cfs.

TemplarGR · 2009-12-31 18:08:02

bangkok_manouel wrote:

definitely not placebo, there have been quite a few benchmarks on LKML demonstrating BFS efficiency. even without benchmarking, i can easily witness this by playing 1080p videos with a 965GM, which is a near-death-experience with cfs.

I have seen benchmarks, but i really wasn't impressed. It seems for some people it works, but on my 2 machines it wasn't an improvement.

makimaki · 2009-12-31 20:24:19

bangkok_manouel wrote:

definitely not placebo, there have been quite a few benchmarks on LKML demonstrating BFS efficiency. even without benchmarking, i can easily witness this by playing 1080p videos with a 965GM, which is a near-death-experience with cfs.

I misread that as ck

1LordAnubis · 2010-01-01 01:34:45

I've definitely felt some differences, and improvements in flash... one big advantage is my CPU definitely runs a lot cooler. Probably about 10 F on average

some-guy94 · 2010-01-01 03:21:32

My computer has actually been more stable with bfs/ck.

Also the most of the changes aren't really measurable, if it helps at all, it just makes it feel better.

Last edited by some-guy94 (2010-01-01 03:22:01)

Primoz · 2010-01-01 13:07:44

I've complained yesterday that it's using more CPU and RAM, but now it does seem faster. In normal ARCH kernel I had to wait for Plasma desktop to load once in KDE in ck I don't need to.
But I've noticed that I can't suspend my computer, I'm sure that I've enabled that option in kernel compilation.
But I did play a bit with rc.sysinit to get faster boot so that might be a problem (maybe I doesn't load the module or daemon or whatever responsible for suspension).

A bit off-topic but, does anyone know where to get stock rc.sysinit so I can compare and resolve this problem?

bangkok_manouel · 2010-01-01 13:21:17

[OT]

Primoz wrote:

A bit off-topic but, does anyone know where to get stock rc.sysinit so I can compare and resolve this problem?

if you're using [testing] : http://projects.archlinux.org/initscrip … =2009.11-1
if you're using [current] : http://projects.archlinux.org/initscrip … =2009.08-1

[/OT]

Primoz · 2010-01-01 13:23:58

bangkok_manouel wrote:

[OT]
Primoz wrote:
A bit off-topic but, does anyone know where to get stock rc.sysinit so I can compare and resolve this problem?
if you're using [testing] : http://projects.archlinux.org/initscrip … =2009.11-1
if you're using [current] : http://projects.archlinux.org/initscrip … =2009.08-1
[/OT]

Thanks!

bangkok_manouel · 2010-01-01 14:08:34

paintchina wrote:

I am using BFS for few days (zen kernel -rc7/8-zen1 - not AUR though but git), better system responsiveness under load than CFS, zen has some extra perks (Sched_iso X - for X server)

anyone interested, patch is here: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/autoiso-xorg.patch

Archiee · 2010-01-01 15:10:36

OK, guys, it's also implemented in Tuxonice!!
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15224

Now, I know, why it is faster than my other kernel.

broch · 2010-01-01 15:33:13

paintchina wrote:

I am using BFS for few days (zen kernel -rc7/8-zen1 - not AUR though but git), better system responsiveness under load than CFS,
zen has some extra perks (Sched_iso X - for X server) and one can select both BFS and BFQ for nice/experimantal CPU and I/O scheduling.
This is still experimental so while .31-rc7-zen1 works without any issues with .31-rc8-zen1, I lost suspend to RAM. Still this is a small price for improved responsiveness.
I hope that Con Kolivas will stay and we will have again good responsive desktop linux kernel.

you are quite behind zen: recent stable is 2.6.32-zen5. It may depend on your config too but suspend to RAM works for me (HP dv5000)

Arch Linux

#251 2009-12-31 10:51:37

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#252 2009-12-31 11:12:00

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#253 2009-12-31 11:14:47

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#254 2009-12-31 11:34:36

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#255 2009-12-31 13:07:56

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#256 2009-12-31 16:43:49

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#257 2009-12-31 17:42:11

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#258 2009-12-31 17:52:47

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#259 2009-12-31 18:08:02

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#260 2009-12-31 20:24:19

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#261 2010-01-01 01:34:45

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#262 2010-01-01 03:21:32

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#263 2010-01-01 13:07:44

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#264 2010-01-01 13:21:17

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#265 2010-01-01 13:23:58

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#266 2010-01-01 14:08:34

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#267 2010-01-01 15:10:36

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

#268 2010-01-01 15:33:13

Re: omg! Con Kolivas is back!

Board footer