AUR (en) - linux-ck

Git Clone URL:	https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-ck.git (read-only, click to copy)
Submitter:	graysky
Maintainer:	graysky
Last Packager:	graysky
Votes:	458
Popularity:	0.24
First Submitted:	2011-07-22 14:51 (UTC)
Last Updated:	2024-06-29 12:05 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 .. 307 Next › Last »

robertfoster commented on 2011-11-01 22:28 (UTC)

please use also the negative channel fix for aircrack

graysky commented on 2011-10-31 10:39 (UTC)

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.

graysky commented on 2011-10-25 23:40 (UTC)

ack - should also mention that BFQ does not apply to the 3.1 tree either.

graysky commented on 2011-10-25 19:30 (UTC)

@skyd - thanks. updated the wiki (feel free to do it yourself in the future).

graysky commented on 2011-10-25 18:54 (UTC)

I know 3.1 is out but the current bfs doesn't patch into the 3.1 tree. I emailed ck.

skydrome commented on 2011-10-25 04:32 (UTC)

ok well i can confirm that gcc's option -march and -mtune's native target goes to atom with this N270 cpu. So perhaps the reason for that capital NOT in the wiki is not needed now.. the kernel works perfectly

graysky commented on 2011-10-24 21:29 (UTC)

@sky - you can go ahead and try it... my understanding from another user who did was that the system would not boot into that kernel. If you have a 2nd kernel installed, go ahead and try. Otherwise, I would use the generic kernel.

skydrome commented on 2011-10-24 20:47 (UTC)

Intel Atom platform specific optimizations (Atoms 3xx/4xx/5xx) - NOT 2xx! I have an Atom N270, does this mean i would opt to use the pentm or p4 packages? or am i limited to the generic? Also, what is the difference in the atom 2xx versions that makes this unsuitable to be used?

graysky commented on 2011-10-20 01:09 (UTC)

Again, a major benefit of using the BFS is increased responsiveness. The benefits however, are not limited to desktop feel. I put together some non-responsiveness based benchmarks to compare it to the CFS contained in the "stock" linux kernel. Recognize however, that it was not implicitly designed to provide superior performance. The purpose of the benchmarks was to evaluate the CPU scheduler in the stock Linux kernel against the BFS in the corresponding kernel patched with the ck1 patchset on different machines to see if differences exist and to what degree they scale using performance based metrics even though these end points were never within the scope of primary design goals of the BFS. http://repo-ck.com/bench/benchmark.pdf For those not wanting to see the data and just wanting the highlights: *7 different machines ranging from 1 to 16 cores were benchmark using both a make and a x264-based video benchmark. *Each machine ran both the "standard" linux kernel (linux-3.0.1-2 from [core]) and the ck1-patched version of this kernel (linux-ck-3.0.6-2 from the unofficial repo). *All 7 machines preformed better using the linux-ck package on the make benchmark. *x264 encoding results were mixed. 4 machines performed better on the BFS scheduler; 1 gave same results; and 3 performed worse. It should be noted that an experimental version (svn) of handbrake was used for these tests.

graysky commented on 2011-10-20 00:28 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the pf-kernel has incorporated the patch Andrea and I proposed without hearing back from ck. I will go ahead and release 3.0.7-1 in a few minutes with the very same patch to kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c for those who wanna build now. I'm hoping ck will reply to the blog post I made asking about this patch soon as well.