Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75

Thread: Five Years Of Linux Kernel Benchmarks: 2.6.12 Through 2.6.37

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The resources that are required to maintain these products would be better put towards common hardware in use.
    No, an old drivers rarely needs updates.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    It would also decrease compilation time,
    You do not need to compile it. You can disable old drivers in config

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    ease configuration options,
    not quite

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    reduce code complexity, and start bringing down the kernel to a reasonable size again on "in the can" distros.
    it really does not matter

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Lets face it, many distro's advertise minimum requirements that often exceed the capabilities of any hardware that would still have support for these products such as ISA solutions, micro-channel support, tolkien ring, etc.
    AFAIR ISA code is still needed for PCI, PCI is still needed for PCIexpress.

    I'm not sure if it's possible to remove isa even on x86_64. Zone DMA probably still has to be supported.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The resources that are required to maintain these products would be better put towards common hardware in use. It would also decrease compilation time, ease configuration options, reduce code complexity, and start bringing down the kernel to a reasonable size again on "in the can" distros. Lets face it, many distro's advertise minimum requirements that often exceed the capabilities of any hardware that would still have support for these products such as ISA solutions, micro-channel support, tolkien ring, etc.
    BTW. The best would you do if asked about it at LKML - there, you'll get the most competent answers.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michal View Post
    BTW. The best would you do if asked about it at LKML - there, you'll get the most competent answers.
    Did long time ago and it was doable. Would have been easier however when x86 and x86-64 were still separate code bases.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michal View Post
    No, an old drivers rarely needs updates.
    Old drivers are quite often updated. One only needs to look at the alsa release logs there to see that.

    You do not need to compile it. You can disable old drivers in config
    Never said you couldn't however the trend for pre-compiled kernel configs is to modularize everything including the kitchen sink.

    not quite
    I really beg to differ, reducing the legacy hardware support would trim the config tree considerably.

    it really does not matter
    Sure it does, especially where installation / live media is concerned plus it would ease the burden on users that do not have a good high speed link.

    AFAIR ISA code is still needed for PCI, PCI is still needed for PCIexpress.

    I'm not sure if it's possible to remove isa even on x86_64. Zone DMA probably still has to be supported.
    I'm talking more of ISA devices such as ISA video cards, ISA sound cards, ISA network cards, etc etc.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Did long time ago and it was doable. Would have been easier however when x86 and x86-64 were still separate code bases.
    and would bring no real big benefits.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zouboulou View Post
    and would bring no real big benefits.
    Reducing code size and complexity always has it's benefits from a developer and auditor point of view.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Why no PostgreSQL benchmarks? Me is sad

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Interesting that also, Intel corp, has confirmed that Linux is getting slower and slower. Maybe this is because Linux is getting more and more bloated?
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.
    Well that depends I guess if you call resuming performance after a regression an "improvement". The only conclusion that I can really see is it depends on what performance you are looking at. Overall it's about the same IMO with a few exceptions.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.
    Yes I looked at every result. I suggest you look again.


    Now the 10 year old BKL is dealt with. That is good. Maybe Linux will soon start to scale better than today?
    http://www.mattheaton.com/?p=222
    "If linux wants to scale efficiently to 16,32,64 cores then the scheduler needs some serious work."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •