Check out the Preemptible Kernel patches...
by
cymen
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Preemptible Kernel patches can result in a desktop that reacts/feels faster... I'm running it here with 2.4.10 on an Inspiron 4000 laptop and I'd have to say I'm impressed - everything feels a bit zippier. The only problem I've had is that there seems to be some loop that it has optimized that blasts bits around the memory bus at high speeds with a rthymic pattern - in short if I'm in a really quiet room the high pitched busses are a bit noisy... Maybe my hearing is too good!
Anyway - doesn't look like much changed since pre-6 so the pre-6 patches should work but if you want to be sure you can wait until rml releases the 2.4.11 final patch. I'd recommend checking it out if you have the time...
Ruling aside the obvious objections (changing major subsystems in a so-called "stable" kernel, NIH syndrome) I can only assume Alan's objection is that it was yet another really neat thing developed (or sponsored) by rival Linux company SuSE (like reiserfs, which he also objected to)
That's a very strong allegation, and you'd better have some solid facts to back it up. I don't care for RedHat but I have great respect for Alan Cox. His objections seem valid to me. I'd also be very reluctant to do a major change in the stable release of any software, especially if I was the primary maintainer (like Alan Cox is for Linux). You'd better come up with some concrete evidence to justify your claim, or I'll assume you are just trolling.
-- ___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Thoughts on kernel development model
by
Erik+Hensema
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
During the stable life of 2.4.x it became more or less clear to me that the current model of development for the Linux kernel doesn't work very well.
Changes that were too experimental for a stable kernel but too important to be deferred to an experimental kernel were included in 2.4.x all the time (the VM changes in 2.4.10 being the best example).
This makes me wonder: isn't it possible to improve the scheme of x.even.y = stable and x.odd.y = unstable? Even as we speak the -ac series provides an experimental kernel within the stable series. Maybe we could enhance this model into something more official.
I'm not sure about the actual form yet. I was thinking about something in the line of three kernels:
Stable: users should be able to rely on this blindly. This kernel works. Each and every release.
Testing: this kernel should evolve into the next stable kernel. More ambitious than the current -pre kernels; longer running development and more testing. Yet, nothing really radically new.
Experimental: playground for hackers. New features are introduced here.
The 'Testing' branch is new. I imagine these kernels to be released every month or so, at about the rate the stable kernel is released now. As soon as the Testing kernel proves something works and it stable, it's up for inclusion in the stable kernel.
Stable kernels should IMHO be lower-paced. Maybe a major release every four to six months or so. The VM is allowed to change radically, but only after having been tested extensively in the Testing series. Offcourse simple bugfixes should be allowed in. This would give us a stable kernel every month. It just wouldn't be a terrible interesting one, as it should be.
The Experimental kernels are as experimental as the current x.odd.y series.
--
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
Slashdot Mirror
The Preemptible Kernel patches can result in a desktop that reacts/feels faster... I'm running it here with 2.4.10 on an Inspiron 4000 laptop and I'd have to say I'm impressed - everything feels a bit zippier. The only problem I've had is that there seems to be some loop that it has optimized that blasts bits around the memory bus at high speeds with a rthymic pattern - in short if I'm in a really quiet room the high pitched busses are a bit noisy... Maybe my hearing is too good!
Anyway - doesn't look like much changed since pre-6 so the pre-6 patches should work but if you want to be sure you can wait until rml releases the 2.4.11 final patch. I'd recommend checking it out if you have the time...
That's a very strong allegation, and you'd better have some solid facts to back it up. I don't care for RedHat but I have great respect for Alan Cox. His objections seem valid to me. I'd also be very reluctant to do a major change in the stable release of any software, especially if I was the primary maintainer (like Alan Cox is for Linux). You'd better come up with some concrete evidence to justify your claim, or I'll assume you are just trolling.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
During the stable life of 2.4.x it became more or less clear to me that the current model of development for the Linux kernel doesn't work very well.
Changes that were too experimental for a stable kernel but too important to be deferred to an experimental kernel were included in 2.4.x all the time (the VM changes in 2.4.10 being the best example).
This makes me wonder: isn't it possible to improve the scheme of x.even.y = stable and x.odd.y = unstable? Even as we speak the -ac series provides an experimental kernel within the stable series. Maybe we could enhance this model into something more official.
I'm not sure about the actual form yet. I was thinking about something in the line of three kernels:
- Stable: users should be able to rely on this blindly. This kernel works. Each and every release.
- Testing: this kernel should evolve into the next stable kernel. More ambitious than the current -pre kernels; longer running development and more testing. Yet, nothing really radically new.
- Experimental: playground for hackers. New features are introduced here.
The 'Testing' branch is new. I imagine these kernels to be released every month or so, at about the rate the stable kernel is released now. As soon as the Testing kernel proves something works and it stable, it's up for inclusion in the stable kernel.Stable kernels should IMHO be lower-paced. Maybe a major release every four to six months or so. The VM is allowed to change radically, but only after having been tested extensively in the Testing series. Offcourse simple bugfixes should be allowed in. This would give us a stable kernel every month. It just wouldn't be a terrible interesting one, as it should be.
The Experimental kernels are as experimental as the current x.odd.y series.
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.