Slashdot Mirror


Linux 4.14 Has Been Released (kernelnewbies.org)

diegocg quotes Kernel Newbies: Linux 4.11 has been released. This release adds support for bigger memory limits in x86 hardware (128PiB of virtual address space, 4PiB of physical address space); support for AMD Secure Memory Encryption; a new unwinder that provides better kernel traces and a smaller kernel size; support for the zstd compression algorithm has been added to Btrfs and Squashfs; support for zero-copy of data from user memory to sockets; support for Heterogeneous Memory Management that will be needed in future GPUs; better cpufreq behaviour in some corner cases; faster TBL flushing by using the PCID instruction; asynchronous non-blocking buffered reads; and many new drivers and other improvements.
Phoronix has more on the changes in Linux 4.14 -- and notes that its codename is still "Fearless Coyote."

51 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Which is it? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    4.14 or 4.11?

    (I expect the summary will eventually get fixed, followed by someone replying to me “WTF are you talking about?”)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I expect the summary will eventually get fixed

      A summary actually getting fixed? WTF are you talking about?

    2. Re: Which is it? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Well, the title says "Linux 4.14 Has Been Released" while the summary begins with "Linux 4.11 has been released."

      Welcome to bizarro world!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Which is it? by donaldm · · Score: 1
      I already have 4.13.10-200 which was from a Fedora 26 update on the 3rd November 2017 (Australian time zone).

      > uname -rv
      4.13.11-200.fc26.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Nov 2 18:28:35 UTC 2017

      It must be noted that I am running the stable version of Fedora 26 not the developer's version, however, I do have a tenancy to get a new incremental release of the kernel once a week as part of the normal update process.

      Of course like most Linux distribution updates I have the choice of a graphical update or command line update or a combination and except for initializing the update process (I could automate the process if I wish) I have full control as to when I reboot (kernel updates only) which only takes about a minute (SSD's are great).

      BTW. If you don't have the 4.13 kernel then you will have to wait for your distribution maintainer to make it available in the repository or you could download (not recommended unless you know what you are doing) it and install it.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    4. Re:Which is it? by fisted · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's 4.11 for Workgroups.

  2. Typo by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    That's TLB flushing, not TBL.

    1. Re: Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, TBL flushing causes the 4.14 to change to 4.11

      It's a bug, to fixed in 4.04

    2. Re:Typo by Misagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and PCID is not an instruction. The feature means that there is a "process ID" tag on each entry in the TLB to avoid having to flush them unnecessarily.
      The intended benefit is that all entries would not necessarily have to be reloaded from page tables in RAM (or cache) whenever there is a context switch.

      "Tagged TLB"s have been available on other CPU architectures for decades -- and have been used by the Linux kernels for those architectures. The feature is pretty recent on Intel x86 CPUs though.
      Correct me if I'm mistaken but I think AMD's x86 CPUs do not have PCID specifically but has support for "virtual machine ID" tags on the hypervisor's second-level TLB.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:Typo by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

      Yes, I thought Tim had a year or two left before the HRT...

  3. Re:Drunk again? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1
  4. Hopefully, it won't ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... come back.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  5. Have they fixed btrfs raid 5/6 yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or do you still have a good chance of losing all your data when a drive fails after you've replaced one?

  6. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does it matter? As long as the USB exploit of ME exists, there is a way in through USB. Only one way is required.

  7. Bigger memory limits by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2

    "Original x86-64 was limited by 4-level paging to 256 TiB of virtual address space and 64 TiB of physical address space. People are already bumping into this limit: some vendors offers servers with 64 TiB of memory today. "

    64TB RAM... fuck.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Bigger memory limits by eSyr · · Score: 1

      HP's The Machine prototype has 160TB of globally addressable memory. And you can easily eat address space with MMIO and trying to encode some additional information in the address.

    2. Re:Bigger memory limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With that much ram, one could play a really kick-ass game of Pong.

    3. Re:Bigger memory limits by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's probably true, though there might be corner cases...

      The thing is, when you've got that much addressable space you should probably be doing paging with an LRU cache flush to an intermediate level of memory, which should save itself to disk in idle moments. This would take about 64 bits/block. One bit for "changed since read from/written to disk" and a bunch for "time of last access".

      OTOH, I have my doubts that they actually have 64TB of RAM. I expect they just have a memory-mapped disk with an LRU cache, so you can address it as if there were 64TB or RAM, and in that case I can see cases where 64TB wouldn't be enough. As far as the OS was concerned, it would look like hardware with a HUGE RAM, even though it was actually a hardware paged disk. This would speed up both power up and power down, and would have other benefits. And for a system like that I can see that an addressable space of n*64TB might always end up being too small for certain classes of problems (for any fixed n).

      But for an actual RAM vs. disk split I think that 64TB RAM should be enough for anyone. Even that would slow down power up and power down tremendously unless you don't care about losing what currently in RAM, and don't care that you're initializing the system with lots of random garbage.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Bigger memory limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > OTOH, I have my doubts that they actually have 64TB of RAM.

      I don't. It seems that you can fit 12TB of RAM (128GB*96) into this fairly standard high-end server: http://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/povw/poweredge-r930 . I expect that there are niche vendors that sell absolutely _massive_ machines for people who absolutely _must_ work with huge datasets in memory.

    5. Re:Bigger memory limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or use Firefox.

    6. Re:Bigger memory limits by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Now let's not get ahead of ourselves here... We're still some way off being able to do non-trivial stuff with firefox.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    7. Re:Bigger memory limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's almost enough for Chrome.

    8. Re:Bigger memory limits by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I misunderstand the assertion. Perhaps you are measuring total RAM rather than directly addressable fast RAM. If that's so, then the rest of this response is inappropriate,

      But my first reaction was as follows:

      Well, if you amend that to "people who feel the must", I'll agree, but virtual memory means that this is a silly attitude. I don't believe that anybody is actively working with 64TB of data at once (i.e., within, say, the same second). If they think you need that then either they're wrong or the machine is improperly designed. I suppose there could be cases where you can't predict which bytes you'll need next, but 64TB is a big cache to have in high-speed storage at once, and should more than suffice for anything. What you need backing it is a huge intermediate speed storage between it and the disk, and I will agree that that intermediate speed storage might well be more sizable. Actually, I suppose that "intermediate" speed storage would be a third level of speed, with CPU registers being fast, followed by a larger fast RAM cache, followed by slower RAM, followed by more permanent storage, with each successive layer being larger but slower than the one before it, but I can see no reason for the fast RAM to be larger than 64TB for anything. In fact that seems overkill. There might be reasons for the lowest RAM level to be as large as the backing store (disks?), but I doubt it. It sounds like poor design. The backing disks should always be considerably larger than the RAM that they are backing, and the slow RAM should be considerably larger than the fast RAM that they are backing, and the fast RAM should be considerably larger than the CPU registers that they are backing. And if the disks are backed up to tape, the tape library should be considerably larger than the disks that they are backing.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Re: my experience with linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    VB!!!!!!

    The story was finished the minute it you said VB programmer setting up Linux servers....,

    Comedy just happens

  9. Linux 4? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Guys, you need to pick up the pace a bit! Chrome is at already at 61.0.3163.100 !

    Eh, while trying to make this joke, Chrome told me an update was ready to install and it's now at 62.0.3202.89

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Linux 4? by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in a world where adding a button in a frigging toolbar gets you a major version bump. :D

    2. Re:Linux 4? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If found the incident of Chrome updating while I was in the middle of doing a joke related to Chrome's stupidly high version to be funnier than my original joke.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  10. Systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Have they deliberately disabled all Systemd compatibility yet?

    1. Re:Systemd? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      systemd broke kernel land, who gives a shit any more after that?

    2. Re:Systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a fan of systemd either, but when userland breaks "kernelland" then the problem is with kernel not userland.

  11. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Sounds holy inadequate.

  12. Re:my experience with linux by decaffeinated · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Nice troll. Were you using VB6, VBA, VBScript, or VB.Net?

  13. Umm... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linux 4.11 was released last May. 4.14 is the version that's coming out today.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  14. Re:my experience with linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nice troll. Were you using VB6, VBA, VBScript, or VB.Net?

    Visual basic for DOS.

  15. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Is there another OS with USB drivers not loaded into kernel space?

  16. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by filesiteguy · · Score: 2

    windows nt 4 doesn't have it. i need to upgrade someday.

  17. Re:my experience with linux by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Are you stuck in 1999?

    Today more than 90% of the Fortune 500 rely on Linux in some aspect

    http://fortune.com/2013/05/06/...

    Linux 79%, Windows 39%
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/l...

    Even Microsoft has given in, SQL Server can now run on Linux.

  18. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 did, BSOD's were pretty annoying when using Prolific USB serial adapters - the dodgy 3rd party code Windows Update automatically installs and runs in the kernel (like every 3rd party driver) when you plug the USB device in.

  19. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    Oh, I know.

    Oddly I can still remember first launching USB under SuSE 9.3 and having to troll my /var/log to see why various devices wouldn't load.

    I probably couldn't even remember how to do that these days.

  20. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Is there another OS with USB drivers not loaded into kernel space?

    Minix?

  21. Re:my experience with linux by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

    Not quite as far back as 1999, but close. This is from 2002.

    https://arstechnica.com/civis/...

  22. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Amusingly, NT4 is where they merged the Kernel and GDI memory spaces in pursuit of graphics performance. Well, they got it, but they also absolutely destroyed NT's reliablity. 3.51 was a rock. Granted, a rock with a 2GB filesystem limit...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Kernel/User: Linux is mixed by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Actually it's both.

    You can write a .ko that will be loaded by the kernel to handle your device
    (used on most Linux for a few things where speed matters, like mass storage, network.
    or for booting simplicity like mouse/keyboard/bluetooth)

    Or you can write an user space device that communicates with the raw USB device using libusb.
    (used on the huge variant zoo of non critical USB devices, like scanners, firmware upgrader, etc.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  24. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Holy inadequate Batman!

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  25. 128PiB of virtual address space, 4PiB of physical by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Turns out they've just added another level to the page tables, taking it to 5.

    https://www.kernel.org/doc/Doc...

    https://software.intel.com/sit...

      I.e. looking up a virtual address now needs a lookup in PML5, PML4, Page Directory, Page Table. Of course the TLB caches lookups but adding more layers increases the time taken to handle a TLB miss.

    I was hoping either Intel or AMD would introduce a more advanced page table - hashed inverted page tables like the ones used in PowerPC, the UltraSPARC and the IA-64 for example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Or maybe someone's invented a better way to do it now.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  26. Re:my experience with linux by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity... how long ago was this?

    (Given that GCC 3.1 dates from 2002 or thereabouts...)

  27. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    Anything that controls hardware is going to be in the kernel at some point..

  28. Re:my experience with linux by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I should have noticed "gcc 3.1"

  29. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by fisted · · Score: 1

    Technically if you have your kernel offer PCI bus access to userspace you could drive the USB host controller completely from there. Not that it would necessary be a good idea, but it would reduce the attack surface to the PCI driver/bus logic (as well as introducing a new potential security problem from userspace)

  30. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    Mine uses the Win2000 drivers

  31. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by jhantin · · Score: 1

    I got into a situation last week doing a fresh install where the chipset's USB host support was built as a module but not included in initramfs. A startup problem (fumbled fstab) left it prompting for the root password without a working keyboard. Well, at least now the blasted driver's compiled in.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  32. Re:USB drivers still in kernel? by jhantin · · Score: 1

    DMA makes that approach a nonstarter unless you have a working and properly configured IOMMU between the controller and main memory. Even then, the most common use case is to give a virtual machine direct access to a device rather than to put an ordinary driver in user space.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k