Linux 3.0 Will Be Faster Than 2.6.39

sfcrazy writes "While we were thinking that the announcement of 3.x branch was nothing more than Linus' mood swing, it seems there is more to it. Linus wrote on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, '3.0 will still be noticeably faster than 2.6.39 due to the other changes made (ie the read-ahead), so yes, the regression itself is fixed.'"

Comments

Faster?

[ZombieBraintrust]

What does faster mean? What will be faster? Are they talking huge Linux servers or Linux Desktops? Latency? User Interface?

Re:Faster?

[TarMil]

Well, the subject of the news is the kernel, not the rest of the OS.

Re:Faster?

[shaitand]

"I will add that I've used many operating systems over the years, and the 'OS' has always referred to the complete package"

I wouldn't dare to suggest that computer science and not user perception is the best place to define an operating system.

Feel free to peruse this gem http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design-Implementation-Second/dp/0136386776 . It is computer science coursework that explains how to write an operating system... err kernel as you say.

As it happens, the MINIX operating system... err kernel, was used as the basis for the book. Once upon a time, Linus Torvalds set out to write an operating system and used this material as reference.

The same author wrote another book, "A History of Operating Systems". You need the history to understand. In the early days all computer operators were programmers and the operating system provided an abstraction between manually controlling the individual hardware components with directly input binary. The drivers, boot system, and memory management were clearly part of that abstraction but since programs weren't even stored but were input one off there was no such thing as a userland program being part of the operating system!

Later storage became more common and some operating systems included some additional helpful applications to make writing your programs easier and later yet pre-written programs began to spread. In some cases like the later dos and apple systems the operating system wasn't even available separately so it became common to refer to the entire operating system distribution as an operating system for short. Many less informed (which ultimately was most) users didn't even realize it was a shortened term.

Re:Faster?

[garyebickford]

Yep, I was there (almost) - some of my first programs were written in IBM 1130 Assembler. :) The machine had 16Kx16bit core, a 1 MB single-platter disk with a one second mean access time. I managed to thrash the poor beast once by nesting too many macros. The key fact is that the control program (pretty close to what we now call a kernel) was on the outside of the disk, the macro-assembler was in the middle, and the user programs were on the inside (or vice versa - I don't recall now). With only 16K of memory, everything the machine did had to be overlaid - except for about 200 bytes or so (I don't recall the number) of code that stayed resident during a job, that basically just knew how to get the next piece off the disk. That could now be called a very primitive kernel.

I suppose this could be considered equivalent in some ways to a bootstrap loader except it continued bootstrapping the various pieces in throughout the process of running a job. Every piece of code had to be loaded over the previous piece in order to run, and each time what we would now call the machine state had to be written to disk. So for each macro call, the machine had to swap bits of kernel, assembler and user code in and out, moving from the inside, to the outside, to the middle, to the outside, to the inside, etc., rinse & repeat. With a one-second access time the 15 minute maximum run time was exceeded before the assembler even finished assembling my 10 or 15 punched cards into machine code. It was a very compact program, but I never did get to run it in its full macro-bedecked glory. I had to turn the program into 100 or so cards of non-macrofied assembler.

I also (much later) had the fun of entering entire programs into an early microcomputer by flipping front panel switches, pushing the 'step' button, flipping panel switches, etc. - make one mistake, push 'reset' and start over. Seymour Cray, when he was still at Control Data Corporation (CDC) was famous for being able to enter the entire 6000 word control program into the early CDC machines from memory using the front panel switches.

So I would say that until we started getting into time-sharing and such complexities, the idea of a kernel wasn't really relevant - there was little or nothing resident in the computer's memory. I think I could safely say that is primarily what a kernel does in a modern multitasking system - provides the environment by which tasks can move safely and efficiently through the system. And the operating system includes all those non-kernel tasks, such as accounting, access control, logging, the many utilities required to provide everything from I/O to temperature control.

Just to put a stamp on this, Wikipedia on Kernels:

In computing, the kernel is the central component of most computer operating systems; it is a bridge between applications and the actual data processing done at the hardware level. The kernel's responsibilities include managing the system's resources (the communication between hardware and software components).[1] Usually as a basic component of an operating system, a kernel can provide the lowest-level abstraction layer for the resources (especially processors and I/O devices) that application software must control to perform its function. It typically makes these facilities available to application processes through inter-process communication mechanisms and system calls.

Operating system tasks are done differently by different kernels, depending on their design and implementation. While monolithic kernels execute all the operating system code in the same address space to increase the performance of the system, microkernels run most of the operating system services in user space as servers, aiming to improve maintainability and modularity of the operating system.[2] A range of possibilities exists between these two extremes.

Re:linux 3.0

[Kufat]

They're currently on 3.0 RC4. So I imagine that what will and won't be in the release has pretty much solidified by this point.

prefetch()

[Anonymous Coward]

According to LWN article about removing prefetch, the linux kernel 3.0.0 will have a bunch of prefetch() calls removed from the kernel.

Apparently they were supposed to provide hints to the CPU to prefetch the next item in linked lists, but the hardware does a superior job of it without the hints. Especially in the case of the next item being NULL, which was the majority of the cases.

A very small speedup to be sure, but it's not like there are many low hanging huge wins left.

Re:prefetch()

[Annirak]

If this is the case, wouldn't CONFIG_USE_PREFETCH be a better solution?

Re:Windows 8

[Annirak]

Windows Vista was slower than Windows XP.

You win some, you lose some.

Obviously

[vga_init]

What with the shorter version number, the kernel should now load faster, use less memory, and execute more quickly.

Re:Windows 8

[aeoo]

On shitty hardware, yes.

When you compare two versions of the same operating system to determine which version is faster, you always use the exact same hardware configuration for both.

LFW

[Anonymous Coward]

What about LINUX 3.11 for Workgroups ?