MEPIS Community Forum

A Linux operating system based on Debian Stable
View unanswered posts | View unsolved topics | View active topics |



Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
SMP & Interrupt Affinity 
Author Message
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm
Posts: 8490
Location: Skullcrusher Mountain, Santee, CA USA
Has thanked: 555 times
Have thanks: 1856 times
Post # 286447
Post Re: SMP & Interrupt Affinity
The Liquorix kernel adds the Zen kernel patches. http://zen-kernel.org/ The same fellow maintains those and the Liquorix kernel, and has an account here as "damentz", though the Liquorix forums is probably a better place to ask technical questions.

In our community repository, http://main.mepis-deb.org/mepiscr/repo/ ... uorix-2.6/

the original kernel source is in the orig.tar.xz file. There's a folder that gets added to the source to "debianize" it, in this case it's the xxx_debian.tar.bz2 file. If you manually extract it, you will get a /debian folder, and inside it a /patches folder that has the patches that get applied to the source to create the Zen source. The kernel config file is also in the /debian folder.

The Liquorix kernel is meant to be more responsive and have low-latency (good for audio work). It also has possibly different process schedulers, such as the BFS one, that are not in the vanilla kernel. Distributing the load between processors probably keeps them cooler overall, though it's hard to measure that.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:46 pm
Profile
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:57 am
Posts: 797
Has thanked: 22 times
Have thanks: 115 times
Post # 286465
Post Re: SMP & Interrupt Affinity
Stevo wrote:
The Liquorix kernel is meant to be more responsive and have low-latency (good for audio work). It also has possibly different process schedulers, such as the BFS one, that are not in the vanilla kernel.

When it comes to the BFS scheduler, the term "snake-oil" comes to mind. For starters the BFS scheduler really doesn't post any gains under system benchmarking when compared to the CFS scheduler. Typically the lack of benchmarks to show that BFS actually does anything is met with responses that BFS is "about the feel of the system" rather than any specific response time or measurable priority usage. However I've never been able to create any situation with any x86 processor; including Atom, Phenom AM2, Phenom II AM3, I7, Celeron D, A64 754, A64 939; where a kernel using BFS provided any noticeable improvement over the same kernel using CFS. The few times I've run a "blind" test where the person I grabbed to sit at the keyboard and do stuff, they thought the kernel with the CFS was more responsive.

The impression I get with BFS is that people claim BFS is more responsive or better than CFS because they are -told- it's more responsive or better than CFS.

I suspect that might also be why the main author behind BFS, Con-Man Kolivas, is extremely disinterested in having the scheduler looked at by Ingo, or any of the CFS scheduler contributors at IBM or Google.

_________________
Slow, lazy, but still around: Call me if ya need help
http://zerias.blogspot.com
http://www.mepisguides.com
Biting the Bullet: Help
Want to buy Mepis Based Computer? Ask me!
http://bit.ly/fbs47I


Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:22 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 12 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.