Slashdot Mirror


Linux 4.15 Becomes Slowest Release Since 2011 (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Linus Torvalds has decided that Linux 4.15 needs a ninth release candidate, making it the first kernel release to need that much work since 2011. Torvalds flagged up the possibility of an extra release candidate last week, with the caveat that "it obviously requires this upcoming week to not come with any huge surprises" after "all the Meltdown and Spectre hoopla" made his job rather more complicated in recent weeks. Fast-forward another week and Torvalds has announced "I really really wanted to just release 4.15 today, but things haven't calmed down enough for me to feel comfy about it."

68 comments

  1. In more ways than one? by subk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's hope it doesn't also run slower than it did in 2011

    --
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    1. Re:In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It easily runs slower. Do you think software performance improves faster than hardware performance?

    2. Re:In more ways than one? by subk · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's exactly what I think. To that end, I expect a kernel from today should perform better than or equal to a similarly configured kernel from yesterday, and indeed that has been the trend. While the Linux kernel has grown in some areas, it has gotten leaner in others.

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    3. Re:In more ways than one? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you remember the move from 2.4 to 2.6? 2.6 all of a sudden made those "light" linux distros for old computers unusable in a large amount of cases.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re: In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like some more information about that please

    5. Re: In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't find it yourself, you probably won't understand it.

    6. Re:In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've searched the Internet for evidence of your claims and found the opposite of what you claim.
      Please cite evidence.

    7. Re:In more ways than one? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Let's hope it doesn't also run slower than it did in 2011

      That's what they try to do. Don't forget that besides the microcode, the kernel also has to integrate some Meltdown/Spectre "mitigation" code, which is likely to alter performances.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:In more ways than one? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It easily runs slower. Do you think software performance improves faster than hardware performance?

      Algorithms improvement? Like improving concurrent accesses tools? Memory management (malloc/free are expensive)? Optimizing hardware utilization and compatibility? This is the Linux kernel - a newer release\ might work faster (better) than an older one.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re: In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't find it yourself, you probably won't understand it.

      If you can't say something useful, you probably shouldn't say anything.

    10. Re:In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't around at the time, but I remember seeing distros like DamnSmallLinux and Puppy (I think) using Linux 2.4 for a while after 2.6 was released. The claim was that they did this because 2.4 was faster.

      I was still at school in those days, so don't rely on my memory or understanding of events to be completely correct from that time.

    11. Re:In more ways than one? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yes. Unusably FAST! We covered this in quite a bit of detail on the Slashdot of old. The summary is quite good with it's description: 2.6 kernel "creams" the 2.4

    12. Re:In more ways than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the kernel specifically, but go and install a modern distribution on an old computer and compare the performance to a distribution from the same era.
      I think you will be surprised.

    13. Re:In more ways than one? by kyrsjo · · Score: 2

      Wasn't that mainly about size? AFAIK 2.4 was the last that could fit comfortably on a floppy disk.

    14. Re:In more ways than one? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Let's hope it doesn't also run slower than it did in 2011

      Since it includes the Meltdown fix it will do on Intel processors

    15. Re: In more ways than one? by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Ludwig, is that you? :P

    16. Re:In more ways than one? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that mainly about size? AFAIK 2.4 was the last that could fit comfortably on a floppy disk.

      Are you referring to the 1.44MB 3.5" floppies, the 360KB 5.25" floppies, or the original 80KB 8 inch floppies?

      As far as I can tell, they are all equally relevant at this point, since nobody uses any of them.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Easy fix by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously if Linus adopted an Agile strategy this wouldn't be an issue. He just needs to setup some sprints and things will work out.

    1. Re:Easy fix by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Imagine how Linux Kernel development will progress once Linus steps down. He isn't going to live forever, you know. I doubt that his replacement would be as tenacious.

    2. Re:Easy fix by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He could be replaced by a seasoned Certified Scrum Master (SCM). You just have to make the SCM is Certified by http://www.scrumalliance.org./ Otherwise it will just be some crazy process nut who is more concerned about the process than the final product. You might think that anyone can write and release software, but you really need to be certified. You just can't have uncertified regular people releasing software! That would be insane!

    3. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told I am certifiable. Is that the same thing?

    4. Re: Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My teacher once gave me a certificate but I really wanted a gold star.

    5. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I request you pay for clean up of my keyboard from spots of coffee NOW!

    6. Re: Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a product manager you insensitive clod. I make the release/do not release decision, not some underling project manager. His job is to work the whip and stick.

    7. Re: Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah all we need is more soft and caring wymmin developing OS kernels. Fukushimas every other week will then finally save the planet from those male pigs.

    8. Re:Easy fix by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the replacement could be the kind it was for Apple in 2011. Tim Cook is not that bad as a regular CEO, it's just that Jobs was exceptional.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      He could hand it to Lennart Poettering.

    10. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or as flat out Aspie deaf, insulting, and rude

      These are features, not bugs.

  3. Im sure Intel isnt helping. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linus himself had to pull a hard stop and publicly excoriate Intel for their absolute non-fix of the Meltdown issue, so thats certainly not helping the 4.15 release. https://linux.slashdot.org/sto...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:Im sure Intel isnt helping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the absolute non-fix of the Spectre issue.
      Meltdown fixes have already been in for a while.

  4. Get it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I prefer Linus's "try to get it right the first time" approach to releases versus the, unfortunately, too common "get it out the door as quickly as possible, we'll fix it later" approach employed by seemingly almost everyone else. (I'm looking directly at you, Microsoft. And Apple's getting a bit of stink-eye, too, given the flurry of patches for the dodgy current macOS and iOS versions.)

    1. Re:Get it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what the fuck went wrong

    2. Re:Get it right the first time by umghhh · · Score: 2

      In our house we release when it compiles, does this qualify for 'first time right' or 'it wobbles trough the door' strategy?

    3. Re: Get it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim F. Crook went wrong

    4. Re:Get it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft didn't get Windows "right" for the first 16 years of that product's existence, and they did pretty well with it, business wise.

    5. Re:Get it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft didn't get Windows "right" for the first 16 years of that product's existence, and they did pretty well with it, business wise.

      It does help when your operating system is installed by default on most PCs. Commonly called "The Microsoft Tax" .

      As for getting "Windows" right. I think it would be fair to say that Windows 10 by default ticks all the boxes associated with Malware.

  5. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This slow it is not about the OS speed, it is about the new version publication.

  6. I worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he dies we're all soooo fucked.

    1. Re:I worry by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      Eh. It seems to me that the Linux kernel is a mature product, thus dead one. Most of the significant changes are really addressing hardware changes, rather than implementing new concepts to enhance computing.

      The Linux kernel is monolithic, meant for the hardware age of standalone computer. When it comes to optimizing cloud architectures or quantum computers, they will probably be best advanced with totally new implementations of OS.

      When Linux dies, the people who only really care about the advancement of computing won't even notice they're not running linux. He'll be a footnote in history (which is a hell of a lot more than anyone else here can say).

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    2. Re: I worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all so; mature kernels are the ancient ones from the vendors like RedHat. New mainline kernels do a lot of new developments, for example, for virtualization and containers.

  7. Title is misleading; slowest PROCESS since 2011 by Khopesh · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the slowest Linux kernel release process, not the slowest kernel itself.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:Title is misleading; slowest PROCESS since 2011 by arth1 · · Score: 1

      This is the slowest Linux kernel release process, not the slowest kernel itself.

      It could very well be. It's the first new release with pmi (which closes Meltdown like risks, but both makes system calls slower and uses more memory).
      And the kernel has become more and more bloated. The absolute minimal kernel to run on any given hardware is much bigger today than it was a few years ago. 2.6.17 is the last one I could fit on a floppy. 2.6.35 is the last one that's practically feasible to run on a system with 128 MB RAM or less.

    2. Re:Title is misleading; slowest PROCESS since 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to the (necessary) security fixes to work around broken hardware, it might very well be the slowest kernel as well.

    3. Re:Title is misleading; slowest PROCESS since 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To deal with a slow Linux process, try killall <process name> or kill -9 <pid>.

    4. Re:Title is misleading; slowest PROCESS since 2011 by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Not sure "slowest process" is the appropriate term talking of a kernel. "Slowest release completion" might be better.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  8. OMG. is this the right place?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait, msmash with a topic on point..
    Bullshit, I dont beleive it.

    its a puppet
    she's too busy gnawing on BeauHD's cock, all of which for Coke..

  9. Most of us don't need that much speed on nix. by mohsel · · Score: 2

    Let's face it, how is this speed difference going to affect the largest majority of linux userbase ?

    1. Re:Most of us don't need that much speed on nix. by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      The title is somewhat misleading. Linux isn't running any slower than before; it's just that the developers have taken longer to release version 4.15 than they have for any other version since 2011, partly due to all of Intel's recent mishaps. This doesn't actually affect anyone much at all (unless you've been anxiously awaiting some or other new feature) - it's just an observation that some might find interesting.

    2. Re:Most of us don't need that much speed on nix. by mohsel · · Score: 1

      My bad then ! thanks for noticing :) I could use a slower release process for my comments too ! Still on point though, as much as speed of code execution, the speed of the releases aren't that critical for most users. for the rest, they could use the RCs or join the party by committing resources to the development process if that bit of features is that important to them.

  10. Good! by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I, for one, am glad to see that someone is taking a more measured, thoroughly tested approach rather than the usual "OMG! Quick - flash new BIOSes, gimme new CPUs, install the latest kernel patches regardless of testing...." approach that has characterized the approach from "the technical community" so far.

    1. Re:Good! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Blasphemy. Do you know what would happen if you had to wait for a more measured, tested approach??? You would miss your sprint!

    2. Re:Good! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      This. Indeed.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  11. Most comprehensive bug workaround EVER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally, this is the largest kludge since compilers had to support 16 bit chunks in extended addressing, and then 16/32 bit thunking back in the win 3.11/win9x era.

    The fact that they managed to get it done in however many months it took, without it getting disclosed for so long is in itself impressive.

    I just hope this will lead to internation governments demanding FRAND patent licensing on x86 so that second source hardware manufacturers with new designs can once again come to the table. If it wasn't for Intel's backstabbing in the late 486-PPro era, we would still have dozens of motherboard manufacturers and potentially more than 2 desktop x86 developers. Sure China/Taiwan is getting back in the boat NOW, but that doesn't really help spread the risk enough anymore.

  12. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Gotta watch out for Linyos Torovoltos and his evil Soviet operating system.

  13. Greg Kroah-Hartman already runs most development by raymorris · · Score: 2

    If Linus is the king of the kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman is the Prime Minister. He makes as many development decisions as Torvalds does, and he's ready to take over as BDFL.

  14. most unprotracted by epine · · Score: 2

    All that extra time, and the slow story authors still didn't manage to rummage around in their duffel bag of virtuous clarity long enough to fish out the phrase "most protracted".

  15. Re:Greg Kroah-Hartman already runs most developmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Linus is the king of the kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman is the Prime Minister. He makes as many development decisions as Torvalds does, and he's ready to take over as BDFL.

    But Greg Kroah-Hartman is a self promoting ass who can't program or design who rides on the work of others and just does politics. Imagine Greg KH trying to lead a bug hunt like Linus does regularly, or make any kind of architectural decision. Linus is a brilliant engineer, Greg KH is the opposite. Would be a disaster, let's just hope Linus is careful with his scuba diving.

  16. Can I disable these measurements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be possible for me to get rid of the secuity measurements on my kernel with sysctl or a boot parameter?

    1. Re:Can I disable these measurements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's enabled by default for now, but yes users can disable it via boot param.

  17. Re:Greg Kroah-Hartman already runs most developmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GKH is a nice guy, but he ain't Linus/not at Linus' level. I won't say bad things about the guy.

  18. Re:Greg Kroah-Hartman already runs most developmen by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    You don't have to look far to find someone to say something bad about him. I don't know GKH well enough to criticize his skills. He does seem to get things done. I do think he's far too polite to take Linus' place. That's not saying a person needs to be a jerk to do the job. But you need to bluntly tell people no, regardless to how they may respond. I don't see GKH that way.

  19. Re: hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed only vile pusmonkeys use Linux. Don't get me started on *BSD, it's dying.