Improve Your GNU/Linux Experience With -mm Patches

An anonymous reader writes "Anyone interested in squeezing maximum performance out of their GNU/Linux operating system and willing to compile a new kernel will be interested in this KernelTrap article about Andrew Morton's -mm patchset. The patchset currently offers better stability and performance than the mainline 2.6.0-test kernel, as well as containing numerous functionality enhancements. Much of the additional functionality is described, as well as providing simple step by step installation instructions. Reading this article, one can certainly understand why Linux creator Linus Torvalds has chosen Andrew to soon become the 2.6 maintainer."

Comments

Oh yes!

[Kaladis Nefarian]

I've been using the -mm patchset since 2.5.4x and have been very happy with it. Since it includes the Interactivity patches from Con Kolivas it kicks ass on your desktop, too. Even moreso than the 2.4.x-ck series of patches, which are intended for desktop use. Do note however that it is sometimes more experimental in nature than the mainline kernel, since new functionality is often tested out there first.

If you know how to patch your kernel already, you don't need to read the article, get the patch for your kernel here: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm /patches/2.6/

Re:synaptics touchpad support

[Dave2 Wickham]

Erm... Because it is?

[dave@tc4 ~/linux-2.5.74]$ grep Synaptics drivers/input/mouse/Kconfig
compatible. Support for Synaptics TouchPads is also included.
For Synaptics TouchPad support in XFree86 you'll need this XFree86

(standard 2.6.0-test5)

Warning to XFS users

[Kaladis Nefarian]

2.6.0-test5-mm3 apparently has a bad snapshot of the XFS code in it. Here's the post from linux-kernel:

From: Steve Lord <lord at sgi dot com>
To: Walt H <waltabbyh at comcast dot net>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>,
Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs at oss dot sgi dot com>

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 13:08, Walt H wrote:
>> Just a follow-up to my earlier post:
>>
>> I've put in the xfs code from mm2 into the mm3 tree and all files get
>> copied and I can manually copy the fstab.backup file afterward. I
>> realized that the "rebuilding directory inode 256" was the lost+found
>> directory, which contained 4 old zero length files. That was the key.
>> XFS under -mm2 doesn't care about old lost+found directories, while -mm3
>> does. If I removed the source lost+found/ and retried rsync's with -mm3,
>> it finishes fine and I can copy fstab files. Adding a bogus lost+found
>> dir with any file in it at the source, and retrying the rsync will lead
>> to a state where I can't overwrite the existing /etc/fstab file at the
>> end. So it doesn't look like there's actually any filesystem corruption,
>> just a strange bug. Hope that helps,
>>
>> -Walt
>>

If I am correct, test5-mm3 contains a bad version of the xfs code, there
was a bug where the i_flags field was setup from an uninitialized stack
variable. mm3 came out during the two days this was in Linus's tree.
I had some very odd behavior with this code base, rm -r -f would try and
cd into files and other bizzare things, files could appear to be
immutable or append only or things they were not. This sounds like
similar behavior you that you saw. It is fixed in the latest code Linus
has.

Steve

So XFS users should probably go with -mm2 for now.

Re:What we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's call it "deb and ian" or something like that.

Re:Hmm

[joshsnow]

What's stopping me from becoming the Linux 2.6 kernel maintainer?

The fact that you keep trolling on Slashdot, perhaps?

Better than 2.6??

[smelroy]

patchset currently offers better stability and performance than the mainline 2.6.0-test kernel So if these stability and performance patches are so great as the article says, why aren't they in the main kernel already? Does Linus just not like them??

My experience with kernel patches

[Anonymous Coward]

Also posted on OSNews:

I've tested the 2.6.0-test5 kernel with Con Kolivas' interactivity patch. I've also tested Con's 2.4.21 and 2.4.22 patches and so far nothing can match the gentoo-sources-2.4.20-r5-aavm patch for speed. (I'm using Mandrake 9.1 and GCC 3.3.1, BTW.) Just watching the init scripts running at bootup and how long XFree86 and Mozilla Firebird take to launch, there's no comparison. Considering that this patch uses Con's performance enhancements, I'm not too confident that it can do any better. But maybe I'll test it out and see what it can do.

If anyone is interested in a mini-howto on using the gentoo-sources patch, speak up and I'll try to whip something up.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

> Hmm.. I thought Linux was open source and anyone could damn well do what they please with it. What's stopping me from becoming the Linux 2.6 kernel maintainer?

Nothing at all is stopping you from becoming a 2.6 kernel maintainer, in the same way that Alan Cox, Dave Jones et al maintain well-respected 'unofficial', but important, variations on the 2.4 tree. You set up a 2.6 tree, incorporate patches that strike you as being particularly useful, and who knows? - others may feel the same, and your tree (and you!) get to the same point as a dj or mm tree.

No, yours won't be the 'official' (ie, the reference) 2.6 tree - just because you set up a 2.6 tree doesn't obligate Linus or his designated maintainer from accepting your patches - but neither can they/do they/would they prevent others from using your tree if they prove useful, and if your particular patch set does prove widely useful, you've got a good shot at getting them included in the main reference tree.

And, the more variations on a given kernel tree, the better. They're excellent labs for trying out things that the reference tree maintainers may not want to try just yet, and give good alternative kernel sources for those not up to such an ongoing project. So yes, I'd recommend you do exactly as you seem to be suggesting, and set up and maintain a 2.6 tree with whatever patch set you feel worthwhile.