On Sunday 25 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it
[...]
>> Can we have a patch to address this? Or should I just hardcode it
>> since it will never be linked to any other
On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it doesn't
> update the version.h available in
> /lib/modules/2.6.20-ck1/source/include/linux to include the -ck1 in the
> reported kernel version when trying to build an fglrx
On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote:
I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it doesn't
update the version.h available in
/lib/modules/2.6.20-ck1/source/include/linux to include the -ck1 in the
reported kernel version when trying to build an fglrx
On Sunday 25 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote:
I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it
[...]
Can we have a patch to address this? Or should I just hardcode it
since it will never be linked to any other later
On Friday 16 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
> patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis
> on serverspace.
>
>Apply to 2.6.20
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Hi Con.
I usually don't
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Hi Con.
I usually don't
On Friday 16 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis
on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.20
Hi Con,
Con Kolivas wrote:
Would some -ck user on the mailing list like to perform a set of
interbench benchmarks? They're pretty straight forward to do; see:
Here are my results for AMD 3200+ (2.2Ghz, uniprocessor), 1gb RAM, 10,000RPM
SATA drive after clean boots into runlevel 1.
Hi Con,
Con Kolivas wrote:
Would some -ck user on the mailing list like to perform a set of
interbench benchmarks? They're pretty straight forward to do; see:
Here are my results for AMD 3200+ (2.2Ghz, uniprocessor), 1gb RAM, 10,000RPM
SATA drive after clean boots into runlevel 1.
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 00:15 -0600, Rodney Gordon II wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > mdew . writes:
> >
> > > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> > >> interactivity.
> > >> It
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> mdew . writes:
>
> > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> >> interactivity.
> >> It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at
>
On Sunday 18 February 2007 13:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
> mdew . writes:
> > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> >> interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
> >> patch is aimed at the
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.20
any
Radoslaw Szkodzinski writes:
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes,
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, they were. Now, it's an extremely
Andrew Morton writes:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
...
> But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
> has an on-off switch.
>
...
Do you still want this patch for
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> ...
> > But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
> > has an on-off switch.
> >
>
> ...
>
> Do you still want this patch for mainline?...
On 2/17/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
> > Plus they worry incessantly that my
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
> > Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious
> > machines'
Con Kolivas wrote:
> Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. Plus
> they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious machines'
> performance...
>
But the one I like,
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
>
> I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
> see, this
Con Kolivas wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
このカーネルは立派だと思いますよ
Running well. Thanks Con,
Con Kolivas wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
snip
このカーネルは立派だと思いますよ
Running well. Thanks
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. Plus
they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious machines'
performance...
But the one I like,
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious
machines' performance...
On 2/17/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
Plus they worry incessantly that my patches
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
...
But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
has an on-off switch.
...
Do you still want this patch for mainline?...
Don't think so.
Andrew Morton writes:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
...
But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
has an on-off switch.
...
Do you still want this patch for mainline?...
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, they were. Now, it's an extremely
Radoslaw Szkodzinski writes:
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, they
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.20
any
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to
On Sunday 18 February 2007 13:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at
the
desktop
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 00:15 -0600, Rodney Gordon II wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity.
It is configurable to
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
>
> I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
> see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
if I'm wrong.)
Has anyone tried booting a kernel with
On Saturday 17 February 2007 11:53, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch
>
> I like it.
Thanks :-)
> Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged?
See the last paragraph here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/112
I'm thru with bashing my head
Con Kolivas wrote:
> mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch
I like it.
Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:35:17 +, Edouard Gomez wrote:
> It also fixed some freezes i had when working on a repository
> converter for mercurial, the convertion process used to be damn slow
> with pre1, it's now just fine.
I didn't mean pre1, I meant the 2.6.20-rc6-ck1 patch you were hesitating
Working well at home and at work.
It fixed the problems i had at work with hard lockups when leaving the
box idling on night and getting back the day after. It also fixed some
freezes i had when working on a repository converter for mercurial, the
convertion process used to be damn slow with
On Friday 16 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch
> is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on
> serverspace.
Running well on quite
On Friday 16 February 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch
is aimed at the desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on
serverspace.
Running well on quite
Working well at home and at work.
It fixed the problems i had at work with hard lockups when leaving the
box idling on night and getting back the day after. It also fixed some
freezes i had when working on a repository converter for mercurial, the
convertion process used to be damn slow with
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:35:17 +, Edouard Gomez wrote:
It also fixed some freezes i had when working on a repository
converter for mercurial, the convertion process used to be damn slow
with pre1, it's now just fine.
I didn't mean pre1, I meant the 2.6.20-rc6-ck1 patch you were hesitating
Con Kolivas wrote:
mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch
I like it.
Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Saturday 17 February 2007 11:53, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch
I like it.
Thanks :-)
Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged?
See the last paragraph here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/112
I'm thru with bashing my head against
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
if I'm wrong.)
Has anyone tried booting a kernel with the
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
52 matches
Mail list logo
