Ingo,
I downloaded the updated cfs-v24 patch and applied to 2.6.22.13. Compiled and
ran fine. Suspend and hibernate are working on my nc6000 laptop now. Now I'm
off to compile and run 2.6.22.14.
--
Thanks,
Durand
--- Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> Just applied this patch to 2.6.22.13 and 2.6.22.14. Compiles and runs
> fine but on my laptop, it prevents suspending and hibernating with
> "one tasks refuses to freeze" load_balance_mo.
please re-download the v24 patch, it should have this
Ingo,
Just applied this patch to 2.6.22.13 and 2.6.22.14. Compiles and runs fine but
on my laptop, it prevents suspending and hibernating with "one tasks refuses to
freeze" load_balance_mo.
Reverting back to sched-cfs-2.6.22.9-v22 solves this problem. If you need more
details, CC me with a reply
Ingo,
Just applied this patch to 2.6.22.13 and 2.6.22.14. Compiles and runs fine but
on my laptop, it prevents suspending and hibernating with one tasks refuses to
freeze load_balance_mo.
Reverting back to sched-cfs-2.6.22.9-v22 solves this problem. If you need more
details, CC me with a reply
Ingo,
I downloaded the updated cfs-v24 patch and applied to 2.6.22.13. Compiled and
ran fine. Suspend and hibernate are working on my nc6000 laptop now. Now I'm
off to compile and run 2.6.22.14.
--
Thanks,
Durand
--- Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo,
Just applied this patch to 2.6.22.13 and 2.6.22.14. Compiles and runs
fine but on my laptop, it prevents suspending and hibernating with
one tasks refuses to freeze load_balance_mo.
please re-download the v24 patch, it should have this bug fixed.
Hi
On Nov 21, 2007 11:39 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
> > point ov view:
> >
> > 23.1 < 23.1+ck < 23.8+cfs.24
> >
> > where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla
* Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
> point ov view:
>
> 23.1 < 23.1+ck < 23.8+cfs.24
>
> where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla 23.1 and 23.8+cfs.24 is
> much better than 23.1+ck.
>
> My workload is pretty
Hi
On Nov 20, 2007 10:53 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
> >
> > I was using 2.6.23.1 with ck patches.
>
> are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
>
>
Hi
On Nov 20, 2007 10:53 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
I was using 2.6.23.1 with ck patches.
are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
point ov view:
23.1 23.1+ck 23.8+cfs.24
where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla 23.1 and 23.8+cfs.24 is
much better than 23.1+ck.
My workload is pretty standard,
Hi
On Nov 21, 2007 11:39 AM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
point ov view:
23.1 23.1+ck 23.8+cfs.24
where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla 23.1 and 23.8+cfs.24
* Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
>
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/
>
> > or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that)
>
> > (my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1
> are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/
> or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that)
> (my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1 scheduler (CFS), so the improvement
> you felt on the laptop
* Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 9:41 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > > First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
> > > laptop feels much better.
> >
>
Hi
On Nov 20, 2007 9:41 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
> > laptop feels much better.
>
> curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
I
* Fabio Comolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
> First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
> laptop feels much better.
curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
> Just a question: does the patch include the fix (divide by zero)
> you just
Hi.
First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
laptop feels much better.
Just a question: does the patch include the fix (divide by zero)
you just posted in the stable review for 2.6.23.9?
Thanks and regards,
Fabio
On Nov 19, 2007 4:17 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:17 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
>
> It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code to
> v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
> downloaded from the usual place:
> > Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
> > (ignored the two "already applied" messages coming from git1
> > commits), I get a 1.00 minimum load in top, coming from the
> > load_balance_mo thread staying in D-state. I get this on 2 different
> > computers with similar
* Damien Wyart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is
> > more than welcome!
>
> Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
> (ignored the two "already applied" messages coming from git1 commits),
> I get a 1.00
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:24:59PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
> Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
> (ignored the two "already applied" messages coming from git1 commits),
> I get a 1.00 minimum load in top, coming from the load_balance_mo thread
> staying in
Hello,
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-19 16:17]:
> By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch. It
> is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code to
> v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
> downloaded from the usual
El Martes, 20 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
> * David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
> > > * David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
> > > > 2.6.23.8, and the
El Martes, 20 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into
Hello,
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-19 16:17]:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch. It
is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
downloaded from the usual place:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:24:59PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
(ignored the two already applied messages coming from git1 commits),
I get a 1.00 minimum load in top, coming from the load_balance_mo thread
staying in D-state. I
* Damien Wyart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is
more than welcome!
Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
(ignored the two already applied messages coming from git1 commits),
I get a 1.00 minimum load
Testing sched-cfs-v2.6.24-rc3-v24.patch on top of 2.6.24-rc3-git1
(ignored the two already applied messages coming from git1
commits), I get a 1.00 minimum load in top, coming from the
load_balance_mo thread staying in D-state. I get this on 2 different
computers with similar configs, so
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:17 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
downloaded from the usual place:
Hi.
First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
laptop feels much better.
Just a question: does the patch include the fix (divide by zero)
you just posted in the stable review for 2.6.23.9?
Thanks and regards,
Fabio
On Nov 19, 2007 4:17 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
laptop feels much better.
curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
Just a question: does the patch include the fix (divide by zero)
you just posted
Hi
On Nov 20, 2007 9:41 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
laptop feels much better.
curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
I was using
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
On Nov 20, 2007 9:41 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Fabio Comolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
First, thanks for this patch. I don't have numbers but working with my
laptop feels much better.
curious: what
are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/
or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that)
(my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1 scheduler (CFS), so the improvement
you felt on the laptop is
* Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/
or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that)
(my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1 scheduler (CFS), so
* David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
> > * David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
> > > 2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > > enabled):
> >
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
> * David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
> > 2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > enabled):
>
> does the patch below help?
>
> Ingo
Yes,
* David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
> 2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> enabled):
does the patch below help?
Ingo
Index: linux-cfs-2.6.23.8.q/kernel/sched.c
* David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can send my config if needed
yes - please always include the config when reporting build failures.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
> * David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > Thnx a lot for theses backports...
> >
> > Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.23.8 with CFS v24
> >
> > Compiling with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED disabled :
> >
> > kernel/sysctl.c:305:
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
>
>
> * Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS
>
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
> > >
> > > It is a full backport of the
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Thnx a lot for theses backports...
>
> Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.22.13 with CFS v24
>
> CC kernel/sched.o
> kernel/sched.c: In function 'cpu_to_core_group':
> kernel/sched.c:6056: error:
* David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Thnx a lot for theses backports...
>
> Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.23.8 with CFS v24
>
> Compiling with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED disabled :
>
> kernel/sysctl.c:305: error: 'sysctl_sched_min_bal_int_shares' undeclared here
> (not in a
* Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
> >
> > It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code to
> > v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13,
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
>
> It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code to
> v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
> downloaded from the
>
> By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
>
> It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code
> to v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches
> can be downloaded from the usual place:
>
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
>
> By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
>
> It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code
> to v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13,
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest & greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
downloaded from the usual place:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/
There's
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
downloaded from the usual place:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/
There's
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code
to v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code
to v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches
can be downloaded from the usual place:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7. The patches can be
downloaded from the usual
* Erik Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest scheduler code to
v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7.
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Thnx a lot for theses backports...
Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.23.8 with CFS v24
Compiling with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED disabled :
kernel/sysctl.c:305: error: 'sysctl_sched_min_bal_int_shares' undeclared here
(not in a function)
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Thnx a lot for theses backports...
Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.22.13 with CFS v24
CC kernel/sched.o
kernel/sched.c: In function 'cpu_to_core_group':
kernel/sched.c:6056: error: 'per_cpu__cpu_sibling_map'
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Erik Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS scheduler patch.
It is a full backport of the latest greatest
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
* Erik Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
By popular demand, here is release -v24 of the CFS
scheduler patch.
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Thnx a lot for theses backports...
Ran into this while compiling a 2.6.23.8 with CFS v24
Compiling with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED disabled :
kernel/sysctl.c:305: error:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can send my config if needed
yes - please always include the config when reporting build failures.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
enabled):
does the patch below help?
Ingo
Index: linux-cfs-2.6.23.8.q/kernel/sched.c
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
enabled):
does the patch below help?
Ingo
Yes, now sched.c
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Lunes, 19 de Noviembre de 2007, Ingo Molnar escribió:
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have removed all other patches, and applied only cfs v24 above
2.6.23.8, and the compiler ran into (with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
enabled):
does the patch
64 matches
Mail list logo
