Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The ~200 Line Linux Kernel Patch That Does Wonders

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There is a relatively miniscule patch to the Linux kernel scheduler being queued up for Linux 2.6.38 that is proving to have dramatic results for those multi-tasking on the desktop. Phoronix is reporting the ~200 line Linux kernel patch that does wonders with before and after videos demonstrating the much-improved responsiveness and interactivity of the Linux desktop. While compiling the Linux kernel with 64 parallel jobs, 1080p video playback was still smooth, windows could be moved fluidly, and there was not nearly as much of a slowdown compared to when this patch was applied. Linus Torvalds has shared his thoughts on this patch: So I think this is firmly one of those 'real improvement' patches. Good job. Group scheduling goes from 'useful for some specific server loads' to 'that's a killer feature.'"

24 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. Compiling the kernel by suso · · Score: 2, Funny

    Compiling the kernel isn't a useful benchmark. How well does it deal with running Adobe Air?

    1. Re:Compiling the kernel by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously you're not running Gentoo.

    2. Re:Compiling the kernel by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to. For 3 years. But I wanted my time back.

    3. Re:Compiling the kernel by Albanach · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to. For 3 years.

      Wow, I think my K6 pentium clone could compile the kernel faster than that!

    4. Re:Compiling the kernel by Inda · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it takes less than 3 years, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    5. Re:Compiling the kernel by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahh you kids with your "I don't care how fast the kernel compiles!" Back in my day it used to take overnight on a 386SX/16 with a whopping 4MB of RAM! And that was AFTER spending hours downloading it across our 1200kbps modems! That connected to PHONE lines! And we LIKED it that way! Well... We really didn't. At some point the kernel source grew to over 10 mb (Remember when we predicted that it doing so would kill the Internet?) and started taking less than 10 minutes or so to compile, and the internet is still not dead! Anyway my point was I was wearing an onion in my belt, as was the fashion back in the day. Get off my lawn you damn kids!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:Compiling the kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      recompile the Gentoo kernel using --mph=88

    7. Re:Compiling the kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, I bet everything but Flash is fast and smooth as silk.

      But won't 200 lines cause a nosebleed?

  2. Distros? by SIGBUS · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course, how many years from now will that filter into the distros? My guess:

    Gentoo: soon
    Debian Unstable: 2Q 2011
    Ubuntu, Fedora: 1Q 2012
    Debian Stable: 2015
    RHEL: 2020

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    1. Re:Distros? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1, Funny

      RHEL in 2020? It will be ORHEL by this time, Oracle RHEL...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Distros? by Rysc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck support contracts. Real men fire up gdb when they see a koops.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
  3. Wait.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's not a kernel patch... That's a bash script that forcibly installs BeOS!

  4. Is this a typo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this a typo?

    "... slowdown compared to when this patch was applied." - Shouldn't that be something like "... slowdown compared to the performance before the patch was applied"

  5. Xkcd knows it by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/619/

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  6. Re:teh snappy!!!! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good luck, Mister Gorsky!

  7. This was always my biggest problem with Linux by dselic · · Score: 5, Funny

    No matter how many different flavors of Linux I installed, it just never seemed as snappy as Windows. There was always a sluggishness about it, nothing I could really put my finger on, but it was definitely there and it bothered me. I'm very glad to hear that a solution is in sight.

    I hope the people at Ubunto get this out as an update as soon as possible.

    1. Re:This was always my biggest problem with Linux by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

      tired "inb4" bullshit...

      why?

      Because if you can predict how people are going to react to a certain set of conditions then you have demonstrated mastery over their inferior minds. But you have to call it out, or else no one will know!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  8. Re:Isn't it awesome by icebraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    The PowerPC owners disagree. The new versions don't perform better in their hardware.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  9. But 400 lines of code.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....would make it 2x faster! LOC is the #1 metric for programming.

  10. Re:Actually that sounbds quite large. by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

    Uhm... I went wrong by not explaining my point in excruciting detail?

  11. Re:Isn't it awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You just need to use your imagination. Turn on your lampstand iMac and pretend that ponies and rainbows begin to leap out of it. If you try hard enough you can pretend it's useful. Just like the iPad!

  12. Slashdotted... by Ingineerix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously they didn't apply the patch to their web server first...

  13. Re:backport? by b0bby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because it'll slow down everything on his system...

  14. Re:Yes, linux could improve. And? by Lanteran · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use linux if you want to know why your computer works. Use mac if you don't want to know why your computer works. Use DOS if you want to know why your computer doesn't work, and use windows if you don't want to know why your computer doesn't work.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.