unofficial linux-ck repo with cpu optimized packages is ONLINE

moscar · 2013-02-02 01:09:34

Anyone getting horrible performance with the 3.7.5-2-ck sandybridge kernel on an i5 2500k? i3 wm is very slow and mplayer can't even fullscreen movies, when I run that kernel. Any ideas how to trouble shoot this? For now I just run the ARCH kernel which is ok.

graysky · 2013-02-02 01:51:13

Try the ck-generic kernel.

the sad clown · 2013-02-02 01:56:04

moscar wrote:

Anyone getting horrible performance with the 3.7.5-2-ck sandybridge kernel on an i5 2500k? i3 wm is very slow and mplayer can't even fullscreen movies, when I run that kernel. Any ideas how to trouble shoot this? For now I just run the ARCH kernel which is ok.

Are you using intel graphics (with sna enabled)?

moscar · 2013-02-02 13:13:10

the sad clown wrote:

moscar wrote:
Anyone getting horrible performance with the 3.7.5-2-ck sandybridge kernel on an i5 2500k? i3 wm is very slow and mplayer can't even fullscreen movies, when I run that kernel. Any ideas how to trouble shoot this? For now I just run the ARCH kernel which is ok.
Are you using intel graphics (with sna enabled)?

No I use ATI card with the latest catalyst driver.

@graysky I'll try the generic kernel when I get home.

lano1106 · 2013-02-02 18:26:35

Hello Graysky,

I am trying to recompile linux-ck-atom from the AUR PKGBUILD tarball linux-ck.

I am not yet an expert with ABS so with a couple of iterations I have founded out that I had the change the variable pkgname.

and then I had to adjust the package functions name.

After that I decided to stop and ask to the guy who regularly generates the binary packages what else do I need to change in the PKGBUILD file to generate a specific CPU optimized linux-ck package that will be able to replace the existing one?

Thank you very much!

Update:

Also check in the conflict statement inside the package function. it is listing 'linux-atom' as a conflicting package. I suspect that it should be 'linux-ck-atom'.

Last edited by lano1106 (2013-02-02 18:47:29)

graysky · 2013-02-02 19:14:46

@lano - Don't modify the pkgname if you wish to build your own version. The names are meant to apply to the repo packages only. The conflicts array and other elements in the PKGBUILD itself get modified by my build script as I cycle through the matrix of arches and cpus for the repo build.

https://github.com/graysky2/repo-ck/blo … r/makerepo

EDIT: You're about that typo in the conflicts array re: linux-ck-atom. Thanks.

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-02 19:29:13)

moscar · 2013-02-02 20:30:51

I get the same bad performance with the generic kernel on my i5 2500k.

Is 3.7.5-1-ARCH and 3.7.5-2-ck based on the same kernel version?

graysky · 2013-02-02 20:42:41

moscar wrote:

I get the same bad performance with the generic kernel on my i5 2500k.
Is 3.7.5-1-ARCH and 3.7.5-2-ck based on the same kernel version?

Yes, I have made every effort to retain as much of the ARCH package as possible. Key differences are minor and include, the ck patch, the BFQ patch, the gcc patch, and slightly modified config (to accommodate the patches).

To recap: you get fine graphics performance on 3.7.5-1-ARCH but poor performance on both ck-generic and ck-sandy?

moscar · 2013-02-02 20:56:10

graysky wrote:

To recap: you get fine graphics performance on 3.7.5-1-ARCH but poor performance on both ck-generic and ck-sandy?

Yes, that is right.

graysky · 2013-02-02 21:35:41

@moscar - I am building an x86_64 package set just for you which only contains the ck patchset with no other patches which uses unmodified config files. In other words, it is as close as possible to the ARCH package. If you experience the same performance hit in the video we have to conclude that something in the ck patchset is the culprit.

If you are running i686 use the link to the source file below and build yourself. You'll note that all the standard stuff in the linux-ck PKGBUILD from the AUR has been commented out. Again, the only difference is the ck patchset.

Source file: http://repo-ck.com/source/temp/minimal- … src.tar.gz
x86_64 package: http://repo-ck.com/source/temp/minimal- … pkg.tar.xz
x86_64 headers package: http://repo-ck.com/source/temp/minimal- … pkg.tar.xz

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-02 21:49:29)

moscar · 2013-02-02 21:47:22

That is very nice of you, I'm ready to test it out!

I'm on x86_64.

EDIT: Ok, I'm a retard. While installing your version above I saw that the fglrx module (ati driver) failed to build because the headers were missing (I installed the kernel first). So I went to check the pacman.log and that is what happened with the other ck-versions as well. Weird this didn't effect me before.

Anyway, I wanted to test the 3.7.5-2-ck-sandybridge again, so I installed the headers first (or tried), they depend on the kernel and thus the fglrx will fail to build every time you install a new kernel because the headers are installed after the kernel. I then reinstalled the kernel, and everything works fine now.

So the actual problem is that the kernel gets installed before the headers, this doesn't seem to happened with the ARCH kernel and headers.

I'm sorry for wasting your time building custom kernels for me, but thanks a lot!

Last edited by moscar (2013-02-02 22:17:05)

graysky · 2013-02-02 22:19:37

We found the solution so you didn't waste my time. Just to clarify: you are successfully running the ck-sandy package set and everything works fine?

moscar · 2013-02-02 22:27:07

graysky wrote:

We found the solution so you didn't waste my time. Just to clarify: you are successfully running the ck-sandy package set and everything works fine?

Yep, I'm running the ck-sandy package and everything is fine.

Do you think it is possible to have the headers update before the kernel, so that it is possible to use the catalyst-hook package without installing the kernel twice with every kernel release?

graysky · 2013-02-02 23:24:15

Glad to here your stuff is working with ck-sandy. To the order issue you raise... I never watched the order in which the packages are updated. I'm not sure what controls it actually, nor do I understand why the "-ck" suffix on the packages would affect the order. I'm open to suggestions.

habarnam · 2013-02-04 10:09:51

Hi, I couldn't see if anyone had this problem so far, but I have some trouble using systemd to start user sessions with the ck-bulldozer kernel as it misses the cpu cgroup.

Is it possible that you add this option to the build? ( CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT=y if I'm not mistaken)

graysky · 2013-02-04 10:44:27

habarnam wrote:

Hi, I couldn't see if anyone had this problem so far, but I have some trouble using systemd to start user sessions with the ck-bulldozer kernel as it misses the cpu cgroup.
Is it possible that you add this option to the build? ( CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT=y if I'm not mistaken)

This is one of the options that the ck patch itself disables. You'll have to send a note to ck asking about it. Here is a diff of the ARCH kernel's config, and a ck-patched kernel's config for your reference (x86_64).

Can you elaborate on the user sessions you're trying to start? I am not that familiar with systemd to know what that means.

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-04 10:45:24)

Perfect Gentleman · 2013-02-04 17:53:09

cannot install nvidia-ck with 3.7.6.1-ck.

If you are using a Linux 2.4 kernel, please make sure
you either have configured kernel sources matching your
kernel or the correct set of kernel headers installed
on your system.

If you are using a Linux 2.6 kernel, please make sure
you have configured kernel sources matching your kernel
installed on your system. If you specified a separate
output directory using either the "KBUILD_OUTPUT" or
the "O" KBUILD parameter, make sure to specify this
directory with the SYSOUT environment variable or with
the equivalent nvidia-installer command line option.

Depending on where and how the kernel sources (or the
kernel headers) were installed, you may need to specify
their location with the SYSSRC environment variable or
the equivalent nvidia-installer command line option.

*** Unable to determine the target kernel version. ***

make: *** [select_makefile] Error 1
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build().
    Aborting...

graysky · 2013-02-04 18:33:56

This is true with the official ARCH packages as well.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/33710
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/33711

EDIT: This seems to be unique to Nvidia since I was able to build both the broadcom-wl-ck and virtualbox-modules against 3.7.6-1.

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-04 20:58:20)

MrCode · 2013-02-04 20:18:29

the nvidia and nvidia-304xx packages which I built against 3.7.5-2 work just fine with 3.7.6-1.

Not here. I get "No screens found" when I update the kernel to 3.7.6-1.

graysky · 2013-02-04 20:28:57

MrCode wrote:

the nvidia and nvidia-304xx packages which I built against 3.7.5-2 work just fine with 3.7.6-1.
Not here. I get "No screens found" when I update the kernel to 3.7.6-1.

Odd, I have one machine using the nvidia-304xx packages with 3.7.6-1 just fine (i686). No biggie. There is some traffic in the two bug reports I posted. Should be a definitive fix soon.

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-04 20:50:31)

snout · 2013-02-04 20:29:37

Same here, nvida driver will not load with 3.7.6-1, so I downgraded to 3.7.5-2 for the time being. Using the Atom specific build, just in case.

swanson · 2013-02-04 20:42:26

Same here with ck-k10 and 3.7.6-1. Downgrading to ck-k10-3.7.5-2 works fine.

Last edited by swanson (2013-02-04 20:44:18)

graysky · 2013-02-04 21:03:08

I just pushed new nvidia-ck and nvidia-304xx-ck packages to the repo (and new PKGBUILDs to the AUR) that build and function on my test box using the patch contained in flyspray #33710. Plz try them.

Last edited by graysky (2013-02-04 21:08:16)

MrCode · 2013-02-04 21:12:57

Seems to be working here. Thanks graysky!

snout · 2013-02-04 21:44:10

Like a charm! Thanks for your efforts - and this amazing repo, graysky. Keep up the good work!

Arch Linux

#1201 2013-02-02 01:09:34

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

#1202 2013-02-02 01:51:13

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

#1203 2013-02-02 01:56:04

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

#1204 2013-02-02 13:13:10

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

#1205 2013-02-02 18:26:35

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

#1206 2013-02-02 19:14:46

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

#1207 2013-02-02 20:30:51

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

#1208 2013-02-02 20:42:41

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

#1209 2013-02-02 20:56:10

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

#1210 2013-02-02 21:35:41

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

#1211 2013-02-02 21:47:22

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

#1212 2013-02-02 22:19:37

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

#1213 2013-02-02 22:27:07

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

#1214 2013-02-02 23:24:15

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

#1215 2013-02-04 10:09:51

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

#1216 2013-02-04 10:44:27

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

#1217 2013-02-04 17:53:09

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

#1218 2013-02-04 18:33:56

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

#1219 2013-02-04 20:18:29

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

#1220 2013-02-04 20:28:57

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

#1221 2013-02-04 20:29:37

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

#1222 2013-02-04 20:42:26

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

#1223 2013-02-04 21:03:08

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

#1224 2013-02-04 21:12:57

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

#1225 2013-02-04 21:44:10

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

Board footer