unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

Evanlec · 2011-11-01 06:40:11

@graysky
How about them linux-ck 3.1 packages? I could lend a few CPU cycles if you need

student975 · 2011-11-01 06:47:01

Evanlec wrote:

@graysky
How about them linux-ck 3.1 packages? I could lend a few CPU cycles if you need

Here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Linux-ck we have:

Linux-ck roughly follows the release cycle of the official ARCH linux package. Once the devs have released the needed components such as the release-specific config files, etc. and once CK has released an updated ck patchset, the packages will be updated ASAP.

I guess, we still haven't official 3.1.

Evanlec · 2011-11-01 08:25:22

Oh I see, I keep forgetting that I'm on the Testing repo.
No problem, I can wait

Zom · 2011-11-01 09:10:41

Evanlec wrote:

Oh I see, I keep forgetting that I'm on the Testing repo.
No problem, I can wait

What's in the testing or core repos aren't the point, the point is that there hasn't been a CK-patch for 3.1 released yet.

graysky, on AUR wrote:

For those wondering, I have the new PKGBUILD and files all set for the 3.1 release. Paolo has finished BFQ for 3.1 so just waiting on ck to port bfs to 3.1. Other related packages are ready to release as well.

AFAIK, graysky updates the package as soon as there are both an ARCH-patchset and a CK-patchset for the new kernel, regardless whether it's in testing or core, but I could be wrong.

graysky · 2011-11-01 09:28:18

Zom wrote:

AFAIK, graysky updates the package as soon as there are both an ARCH-patchset and a CK-patchset for the new kernel, regardless whether it's in testing or core, but I could be wrong.

You're correct. CK has been very busy and will I'm sure update ck1 to patch into 3.1 as soon as he is able. Until then, we all have to just sit tight.

Please keep posts in this thread limited to the repo and to the packages therein.

Last edited by graysky (2011-11-01 09:29:37)

kyla · 2011-11-02 03:28:08

graysky, I noticed that you removed the part in the wiki article about how those with 200-level atom processors (ugh, sorry, I don't know the appropriate lingo for this) shouldn't use the pre-compiled atom packages. Does its removal mean that has changed, e.g., can I use those packages on my netbook which has an atom n280 processor?

rickeyski · 2011-11-02 05:53:53

Graysky, just added the repo to try this out and wanted to say thanks for your work on the packages.

Last edited by rickeyski (2011-11-02 05:55:01)

graysky · 2011-11-02 08:33:56

@kyla - Correct. Several in the community have reported that the original warnings were false.
@rickey - you're welcome, enjoy!

Markus00000 · 2011-11-02 18:10:46

graysky wrote:

@Markus - that suggests whatever is going on to be caused by the upstream patches ... somehow. Suggest you contact ck either on his blog or by email.

I sent an email to ck but haven't got a response yet.

In case it matters, I have installed linux-pf and it shows the same issue.

graysky · 2011-11-04 01:39:53

All - my build script needs to be tweaked to accommodate the new format of the nvidia-ck and broadcom-wl-ck packages. I can't get to it until tomorrow so the repo update will be a little delayed.

b9anders · 2011-11-04 10:48:42

Well, there is a first time for everything I suppose. Somehow I actually managed to force something similar to the BSOD today, with something as simple as a drag'n'drop in a java program (a program I use all the time, never seen anything like it) forcing an immediate reboot as the kernel crashed.

I've managed to crash the X server before, but never the kernel.

Markus00000 · 2011-11-04 12:43:35

Edit: Here once was a long comment about the BFS breaking Bash's history key bindings in ~/.inputrc. This problem has been reported to its maintainer, Con Kolivas.

Last edited by Markus00000 (2011-11-05 12:26:15)

graysky · 2011-11-04 22:06:27

@markus - glad you're troubleshooting. Can you please start a new thread to keep this on topic. Might be good if you cut/paste your last post into the new thread too (maybe just leave #537 blank).

To all - finally had the time to adjust my build script to the new nvidia-ck and broadcom-wl-ck PKGBUILDs. The 3.1 series is now live in the repo. As usual, please repo any problems in this thread if they are related to either the repo or the repo packages. Please start a new thread if you have questions/problems with the contents of the packages.

dhave · 2011-11-04 22:17:32

graysky wrote:

To all - finally had the time to adjust my build script to the new nvidia-ck and broadcom-wl-ck PKGBUILDs. The 3.1 series is now live in the repo. As usual, please repo any problems in this thread if they are related to either the repo or the repo packages. Please start a new thread if you have questions/problems with the contents of the packages.

Graysky, You da man, etc.

BTW, is that pronounced like the phrase "gray sky" or like "grayski", withe the accent on the first syllable?

dhave · 2011-11-04 22:55:16

@graysky: Yesterday I compiled my own linux-ck for kernel 3.1 using your PKGBUILD in the AUR. Now I'd like to install your pre-compiled linux-ck-corei7-3.1.1 package as well. When you get a minute, could you please suggest the best way to get around the package conflict between linux-ck and linux-ck-corei7?

Thanks.

Last edited by dhave (2011-11-04 22:58:07)

graysky · 2011-11-04 22:57:33

@dhave - graysky like the sky is gray. Just remove the pkgs you build in the AUR and d/l from the repo:

# pacman -Rs linux-ck linux-ck-headers
# pacman -S ck-corei7

dhave · 2011-11-04 22:59:14

graysky wrote:

@dhave - graysky like the sky is gray. Just remove the pkgs you build in the AUR and d/l from the repo:
# pacman -Rs linux-ck linux-ck-headers
# pacman -S ck-corei7

Yeah, but I want to keep both my custom compiled linux-ck and your pre-compiled linux-ck-corei7. What's the best way to do that?

graysky · 2011-11-04 23:03:03

Oh! I mis-read your post. You can't keep both since they conflict and will write files to the same locations. If you customized the build, just keep your own; no need for the repo packages since I'm assuming your /etc/makepkg.conf provides the same optimizations as the repo packages + assuming you have the settings in the nconfig for your chip as well.

graysky · 2011-11-05 19:44:32

Change to repo offerings.
High-level summary: I have combined the three Intel -coreX packages (-core2, -corei7, and -corei7-avx) into one super package, "-corex"; I have combined the three AMD -kX packages (-k7, -k8, and -k10) into one super package, "-kx."

Note: If I implemented the provides array correctly, end-users should have a completely transparent upgrade from one of the "legacy" packages to the new "super" package so no need to panic.

For repo details and usage examples, consult the linux-ck wiki article.

Should you want more of an explanation, read on, other wise, you know what you need to know :)

Details: It is has come to my attention that custom CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS I have been using for packages such as core2, corei7, corei7-avx, k7, k8, and k10 have no effect on resulting kernels through my own testing (rigorous benchmarking) and from others. Additionally, I verified that a single machine is able to successfully boot and run any number of non-native packages (core2, corei7, and core-avx all booted on several test machines (C2D and C2Q) without kernel panics or performance degradation. All these data support my statement.

Conclusion: There is no value in continuing to build a number of packages in this fashion when the real tweaks occur via the .config options for CPUs. Therefore, I have combined the following packages into a single, CPU-specific set of packages:

-core2 ----------|
-corei7 ---------| ==============>  -corex
-corei7-avx -----|

-k7 -------------|
-k8 -------------| ==============>  -corekx
-k10 ------------|

Current offerings:

x86_64/i686
generic ==> Compiled with generic optimizations suitable for any compatible CPU just like the official ARCH linux package. This is true for both Intel and AMD chips.
atom ==> Intel Atom platform specific optimizations.
corex ==> Intel Core 2-family including Dual and Quads (Core 2/Newer Xeon/Mobile Celeron based on Core2) and Core i3/i5/i7-family specific optimizations (Gulftown, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Clarksfield, Arrendale, and Sandybridge CPUs).
kx ==> AMD K7 (Athlon/Athlon XP), K8 (Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, 23xx Quad-Core Barcelona, Sempron, Sempron 64), and K10-family (Athlon X2 7x50, Phenom X3/X4, Phenom II, Athlon II X2/X3/X4, Sempron 64 (Socket AM3 only), 61xx Eight-Core Magny-Cours) specific optimizations.

i686-Only
p4 ==> Intel Pentium-4 specific optimizations (P4/P4-based Celeron/Pentium-4 M/Older Xeon).
pentm ==> Intel Pentium-M specific optimizations (Pentium-M notebook chips/not Pentium-4 M).

Example of an Upgrade:

$ sudo pacman -Syu
:: Synchronizing package databases...
 core is up to date
 extra is up to date
 community is up to date
 repo-ck                                    3.1K   28.4M/s 00:00:00 [#####################################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
:: Replace linux-ck-core2 with repo-ck/linux-ck-corex? [Y/n] y
:: Replace nvidia-ck-core2 with repo-ck/nvidia-ck-corex? [Y/n] y
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Remove (2): linux-ck-core2-3.1-1  nvidia-ck-core2-285.05.09-3

Total Removed Size:   60.94 MB

Targets (2): linux-ck-corex-3.1-2  nvidia-ck-corex-285.05.09-4

Total Download Size:    44.33 MB
Total Installed Size:   60.95 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] 
:: Retrieving packages from repo-ck...
 linux-ck-corex-3.1-2-x86_64               40.1M  110.3M/s 00:00:00 [#####################################] 100%
 nvidia-ck-corex-285.05.09-4-x86_64         4.3M  108.2M/s 00:00:00 [#####################################] 100%
(2/2) checking package integrity                                    [#####################################] 100%
(2/2) checking for file conflicts                                   [#####################################] 100%
(1/2) removing linux-ck-core2                                       [#####################################] 100%
(2/2) removing nvidia-ck-core2                                      [#####################################] 100%

Zom · 2011-11-05 20:49:31

Worked just fine here, k8 -> kx. Thanks.

jakob · 2011-11-05 20:55:14

graysky wrote:

Change to repo offerings.
High-level summary: I have combined the three Intel -coreX packages (-core2, -corei7, and -corei7-avx) into one super package, "-corex"; I have combined the three AMD -kX packages (-k7, -k8, and -k10) into one super package, "-kx."

Hey graysky, I just wanted to express my gratitude towards your testing of the different optimizations and ongoing engagement with the Archlinux community! Thanks!

And the update corei7-avx -> corex worked flawlessly, good job!

MrCode · 2011-11-05 22:03:21

linux-ck-corei7 -> linux-ck-corex

Worked just fine.

lynix · 2011-11-05 22:36:06

@graysky: I'd like to join jakob in saying Thank You for all your efforts! repo-ck rocks

It surprises me that there is no difference for -i7 and -i7-avx, but I've read your scheduler-comparison paper and I know you're benchmarking scientifically well so I fully trust you

Last edited by lynix (2011-11-05 22:36:40)

graysky · 2011-11-05 22:45:10

Thx for the kind words, all. Enjoy and please report any issues.

Last edited by graysky (2011-11-05 22:47:53)

enihcam · 2011-11-06 01:21:52

Hi Graysky,

I want to create a x86 linux router, and i think the router can be benefited from installing ck kernel in performance gaining. So i just wondering, can repo-ck kernel be installed on other linux distros?

Arch Linux

#526 2011-11-01 06:40:11

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#527 2011-11-01 06:47:01

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#528 2011-11-01 08:25:22

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#529 2011-11-01 09:10:41

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#530 2011-11-01 09:28:18

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#531 2011-11-02 03:28:08

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#532 2011-11-02 05:53:53

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#533 2011-11-02 08:33:56

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#534 2011-11-02 18:10:46

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#535 2011-11-04 01:39:53

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#536 2011-11-04 10:48:42

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#537 2011-11-04 12:43:35

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#538 2011-11-04 22:06:27

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#539 2011-11-04 22:17:32

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#540 2011-11-04 22:55:16

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#541 2011-11-04 22:57:33

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#542 2011-11-04 22:59:14

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#543 2011-11-04 23:03:03

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#544 2011-11-05 19:44:32

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#545 2011-11-05 20:49:31

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#546 2011-11-05 20:55:14

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#547 2011-11-05 22:03:21

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#548 2011-11-05 22:36:06

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#549 2011-11-05 22:45:10

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

#550 2011-11-06 01:21:52

Re: unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

Board footer