Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Official thread: "zen-sources" - Part 7
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AaronPPC
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 522
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So "frakkin' fast" isn't quantitative enough? :D
_________________
--Aaron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darklegion
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 468

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MageSlayer wrote:
Guys, again

Can somebody post some REAL numbers on your experience?
Not super-puper boost/increase/decrease, but something that can be compared.
Interbench (http://users.on.net/~ckolivas/interbench/) numbers are ok, I think.


Here you go:

2.6.30-zen5 (cfs)
Code:

Using 3568151 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.30-zen5-31380-ge7c0d6d at datestamp 200908271859

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.004 +/- 0.00459    0.011             100            100
Video     0.011 +/- 0.122       2.97             100            100
X         0.003 +/- 0.00328    0.008             100            100
Burn      0.003 +/- 0.00346    0.008             100            100
Write     0.424 +/- 6.25         141            99.8           99.8
Read      0.016 +/- 0.177       4.32             100            100
Compile   0.076 +/- 0.684       8.83             100            100
Memload   0.018 +/- 0.114       2.78             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.003 +/- 0.00392    0.009             100            100
X         0.004 +/- 0.00588    0.077             100            100
Burn       6.21 +/- 11.8          50            98.7           87.2
Write     0.262 +/- 3.24        73.3            99.5             99
Read      0.061 +/- 0.574       16.8             100           99.9
Compile    7.73 +/- 16.4        77.9            93.6           76.7
Memload   0.043 +/- 0.549       16.7             100           99.9

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None          0 +/- 0.000619   0.008             100            100
Video         0 +/- 0.000619   0.007             100            100
Burn       51.4 +/- 77.3         201            18.4           9.46
Write      6.45 +/- 21.7         175            67.2           61.8
Read       23.2 +/- 41.4         112              30           20.3
Compile    68.8 +/- 98.9         238            15.4           6.71
Memload       0 +/- 0.00239     0.03             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU
None       0.07 +/- 1.1           19            99.9
Video     0.656 +/- 5.67        65.5            99.3
X         0.127 +/- 0.615        3.8            99.9
Burn        155 +/- 158          227            39.3
Write      18.3 +/- 41.6         187            84.5
Read       96.8 +/- 102          149            50.8
Compile     244 +/- 250          355            29.1
Memload   0.001 +/- 0.0161     0.277             100


2.6.30-zen5-bfs
Code:

Using 3568151 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.30-zen5-bfs-31391-g719faef at datestamp 200908271827

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.003 +/- 0.00389    0.009             100            100
Video     0.002 +/- 0.00289    0.007             100            100
X         0.003 +/- 0.00333    0.008             100            100
Burn      0.003 +/- 0.00314    0.007             100            100
Write     0.014 +/- 0.121       2.94             100            100
Read      0.008 +/- 0.0098     0.122             100            100
Compile    0.01 +/- 0.0135     0.188             100            100
Memload   0.013 +/- 0.0282     0.249             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.003 +/- 0.00369    0.008             100            100
X         0.003 +/- 0.00322    0.008             100            100
Burn       14.6 +/- 15.6        16.7             100           12.6
Write     0.032 +/- 0.56        16.7             100           99.9
Read      0.006 +/- 0.00748     0.13             100            100
Compile    15.9 +/- 18            50            83.6             14
Memload   0.008 +/- 0.00948    0.032             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None          0 +/- 0.000574   0.008             100            100
Video      0.01 +/- 0.129          2             100           99.3
Burn       53.2 +/- 73.1         156            19.9           8.63
Write      1.06 +/- 7.97          99            92.5           90.4
Read      0.033 +/- 0.258          2            98.7           97.7
Compile    75.1 +/- 100          219            15.9           5.48
Memload   0.026 +/- 0.283          4            99.3           98.7

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU
None          0 +/- 0.00869    0.151             100
Video     0.016 +/- 0.166       2.32             100
X         0.005 +/- 0.0893      1.55             100
Burn        148 +/- 149          164            40.3
Write      5.33 +/- 15          96.1            94.9
Read       1.78 +/- 2.1         5.46            98.3
Compile     223 +/- 226          287            30.9
Memload   0.307 +/- 1.6         17.3            99.7


Specifications:
Intel e5200 @ 3.6ghz
4GB DDR800 ram
Gigabyte ep45-ds3
Nvidia GTX275

Gentoo ~AMD64

Benchmark was run in X, but with only ratpoison and a single urxvt opened.Would have been better if it were run in runlevel 1, but I couldn't be bothered running it again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ponciarello
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 223
Location: beach of slack

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

init 1

Code:
Using 2183223 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.30.5 at datestamp 200908271114

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.051 +/- 0.0511     0.057             100            100
Video     0.005 +/- 0.00597    0.012             100            100
X         0.033 +/- 0.0371      0.07             100            100
Burn      0.005 +/- 0.00516    0.006             100            100
Write     0.241 +/- 2.53        50.2             100           99.8
Read      0.009 +/- 0.0099     0.082             100            100
Compile   0.008 +/- 0.0216     0.481             100            100
Memload   0.036 +/- 0.392       9.03             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.054 +/- 0.055      0.078             100            100
X         0.043 +/- 0.0456     0.079             100            100
Burn       9.51 +/- 14.9        69.4              99             77
Write     0.126 +/- 2.01        69.7            99.8           99.6
Read      0.009 +/- 0.0186     0.218             100            100
Compile    8.39 +/- 15.1        79.9            96.7           77.1
Memload   0.051 +/- 0.0562     0.597             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None       0.07 +/- 0.436          3              98             96
Video     0.136 +/- 0.719          4            95.6           93.5
Burn       53.8 +/- 80.5         209            17.6           8.36
Write       0.4 +/- 3.61          45            92.6           90.2
Read      0.136 +/- 0.719          4            95.6           93.5
Compile    54.5 +/- 81.8         210              18           8.89
Memload   0.192 +/- 0.917          6            95.3           92.2

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU
None       2.33 +/- 2.34        2.87            97.7
Video      3.63 +/- 3.64        3.89            96.5
X          3.64 +/- 3.72        5.14            96.5
Burn        166 +/- 172          244            37.6
Write       3.9 +/- 8.32         109            96.2
Read       3.36 +/- 3.38         4.2            96.7
Compile     180 +/- 186          290            35.7
Memload    3.83 +/- 4.53        42.5            96.3


Code:
Using 2183223 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.30-zen5-bfs at datestamp 200908270843

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.006 +/- 0.00665    0.012             100            100
Video     0.005 +/- 0.00582    0.013             100            100
X         0.005 +/- 0.00611    0.009             100            100
Burn      0.069 +/- 1.1         19.1             100            100
Write     0.008 +/- 0.00858    0.022             100            100
Read      0.008 +/- 0.00888    0.022             100            100
Compile   0.016 +/- 0.187       4.56             100            100
Memload    0.01 +/- 0.0112     0.034             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.006 +/- 0.00682    0.015             100            100
X         0.006 +/- 0.00622    0.014             100            100
Burn       15.5 +/- 16.1        16.7             100           6.97
Write     0.017 +/- 0.393       16.7             100           99.9
Read      0.007 +/- 0.00732    0.027             100            100
Compile    15.7 +/- 16.4          50            98.1           7.04
Memload   0.008 +/- 0.00914    0.064             100            100

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None      0.013 +/- 0.141          2             100             99
Video     0.069 +/- 0.436          3              98             96
Burn       55.9 +/- 76.7         158            19.7           8.27
Write     0.166 +/- 1.59          24            96.2           95.1
Read      0.049 +/- 0.361          3              98           96.7
Compile    60.5 +/- 83.7         220            18.4           7.68
Memload   0.219 +/- 1.26           9            93.8           91.7

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated ---
Load    Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU
None      0.714 +/- 0.717       1.03            99.3
Video      2.44 +/- 2.45         3.1            97.6
X          2.68 +/- 2.91        4.47            97.4
Burn        161 +/- 162          178            38.3
Write      2.13 +/- 3.98          29            97.9
Read       1.88 +/- 1.9         2.66            98.2
Compile     175 +/- 177          228            36.3
Memload    3.85 +/- 4.9         15.9            96.3


lspci -v, /proc/cpuinfo, this is the laptop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MageSlayer
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 250
Location: Ukraine

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ponciarello
Well, no significant effect is seen, afaiu.
Except sudden drop in Burn in the 2d test.
Compile phase also does not show any wonders :( (Are you sure your joy about "make -j4" was not subjective :) ? )

darklegion
Here we see some more interesting picture - Read/Write in the 3d test is definitely better.

BTW, does anybody of you uses http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309#c397 patch in your kernel?
Sometimes people report it beats any those cpu scheduler tweaks.
As you understand we need a fair comparison :)

Thanks for info, guys
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ponciarello
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 223
Location: beach of slack

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you can do some test too, mageslayer ;) :)

look well at test results, i can say difference is tangible for the user: for me (also I play a lot Enemy Territory) it is ;)


Last edited by ponciarello on Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AaronPPC wrote:
kernelOfTruth wrote:
I can't understand why those guys more or less neglect desktop-related optimizations

This probably isn't the right thread to debate this, but I wouldn't say he is ignoring the desktop. It is just that the Linux world is bigger than the desktop. The Linux Foundation has corporate backers that who care about servers and routers and not the desktop. I don't mean to imply that there is some corporate conspiracy. My point is that Linus has more things to worry about and he seems very opposed to forking the kernel into "home" and "server" products.


you're right, afaik they've already discussed this at length on lkml

My Point is: since nowadays linux is gaining more and more part in mobile and other "desktop" devices why settle for using an scheduler with excellent performance on multi-cpu environments and an mediocre performance on oligo-cpu environments and not use what's working great on those devices (== using 2 different selectable schedulers for those different use-cases) ?

anyways this shall be discussed on lkml or some other basis


MageSlayer wrote:

BTW, does anybody of you uses http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309#c397 patch in your kernel?
Sometimes people report it beats any those cpu scheduler tweaks.
As you understand we need a fair comparison :)



yes ! everyone who's using 2.6.30-zen4 :wink:

it really seems to make a noticable (but not significant) positive difference
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1159

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

for now doesn't play well with CONFIG_DEVTMPFS set.
and microcode seg faults.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tranquilcool wrote:
for now doesn't play well with CONFIG_DEVTMPFS set.
and microcode seg faults.


for me it wouldn't even launch metacity, gnome, xfce4, midori (gtk-webkit based), chromium wouldn't launch any websites, ...

so I'll stay away from it until it has got some more testing (maybe it doesn't like hardening / SSP ? :o )
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ponciarello
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 223
Location: beach of slack

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

xfce4 works fine here :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheater1034
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 1558

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the cfq drain async i/o patch has been in zen for quite some time now (2.6.30 and 2.6.31)

From the charts i've seen (and the charts i've posted a page back, mageslayer) - there is a positive difference in numerous aspects.

And remember, interbench is an interactivity test, try the other benchmarks for thoroughput and responsiveness:
http://users.on.net/~ckolivas/
_________________
IRC!: #zen-sources on irc.rizon.net
zen-kernel.org
--
Lost in android development land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheater1034
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 1558

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and btw, the origin/sched-bfs branch can be merged into master so you can try bfs on 2.6.31
_________________
IRC!: #zen-sources on irc.rizon.net
zen-kernel.org
--
Lost in android development land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waninkoko
Guru
Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 549

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheater1034 wrote:
and btw, the origin/sched-bfs branch can be merged into master so you can try bfs on 2.6.31


But it's not recommened to use it yet as there are some remaining bugs I have to fix first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheater1034
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 1558

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

master-2.6.30-bfs will soon be deleted, due to me splitting up bfs and cfs via Kconfig (like in the old days)

All the includes and declarations and a couple functions will be universal in sched.c, rest will be in either sched_cfs.c or sched_bfs.c

*edit*
use master-2.6.30 now please, bfs is in general setup to enable it
_________________
IRC!: #zen-sources on irc.rizon.net
zen-kernel.org
--
Lost in android development land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darklegion
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 468

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kernelOfTruth wrote:
tranquilcool wrote:
for now doesn't play well with CONFIG_DEVTMPFS set.
and microcode seg faults.


for me it wouldn't even launch metacity, gnome, xfce4, midori (gtk-webkit based), chromium wouldn't launch any websites, ...

so I'll stay away from it until it has got some more testing (maybe it doesn't like hardening / SSP ? :o )


If you tried it when it was bfs-016, that would explain it.It was pretty much unusable for me.But bfs-018 works great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darklegion wrote:
kernelOfTruth wrote:
tranquilcool wrote:
for now doesn't play well with CONFIG_DEVTMPFS set.
and microcode seg faults.


for me it wouldn't even launch metacity, gnome, xfce4, midori (gtk-webkit based), chromium wouldn't launch any websites, ...

so I'll stay away from it until it has got some more testing (maybe it doesn't like hardening / SSP ? :o )


If you tried it when it was bfs-016, that would explain it.It was pretty much unusable for me.But bfs-018 works great.


strange then bfs-019 got broken again ? :o

afaik it was bfs-019 that I was using

now let's see if 102 works better (100 <-- should be "stable" or at least usable now according to the version number)
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1159

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

102 doesn't start hald. so keyboard and
mouse don't work. 018 only breaks microcode.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darklegion
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 468

PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

strange then bfs-019 got broken again ? :o

afaik it was bfs-019 that I was using

now let's see if 102 works better (100 <-- should be "stable" or at least usable now according to the version number)


Yeah, it seems to be pretty volatile at the moment.I pulled in the updated master-2.6.30 with bfs merged in, and it often hangs while booting the kernel.This was yesterday, so I've just upgraded again today, and will see if it works well.If not, I'll just revert to master-2.6.30-bfs which doesn't have any issues on my system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bollucks
l33t
l33t


Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 606

PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trying bfs103 on unpatched 2.6.30 boots and works flawlessly, but this patch does not. Broken merge?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheater1034
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 1558

PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bollucks wrote:
Trying bfs103 on unpatched 2.6.30 boots and works flawlessly, but this patch does not. Broken merge?


bfs 103 works up to 2.6.30.3, 2.6.30.4+ boots intermittently for me (like someone said above, it just hangs)

I'm currently bisecting to find the bug that bfs brought out in the kernel (since it's not an actual bfs bug - it's a kernel bug that bfs happened to expose)
_________________
IRC!: #zen-sources on irc.rizon.net
zen-kernel.org
--
Lost in android development land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
predatorfreak
l33t
l33t


Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 708
Location: USA, Michigan.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, Con's made something of a comeback, eh? My good ol' buddy the SD scheduler's back.

Might have to dust off quilt and get back to this, if I can spare the time between college and my other projects.
_________________
System: predatorbox
Distro: Arch Linux x86_64
Current projects: blackhole, convmedia and anything else I cook up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xmixahlx
n00b
n00b


Joined: 09 Jan 2008
Posts: 9
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bfs was unusable for me but did boot up etc. (horrible lockups and i had to patch kernel/freezer.c to change #else to #endif

i switched back to using master-2.6.30

i was getting "panic early exception" messages compiling the debian way (using the official debian config as template and just adding on zen options with an initrd image).

...so i compiled everything into the kernel (master-2.6.30, zen5) and using pre-empt & cfs is running smooth.

i'm interested in the BFS work so hoping it becomes usable soon.


-michael
_________________
Rarewares/Debian: http://www.rarewares.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martin.k
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Posts: 493
Location: Wylatowo, Polska

PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:21 am    Post subject: Hats off ! chapeau! Reply with quote

Code:
 http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/

8O
It's time to dust off some "ye olde stuff"...

P.S.
Please God, just bring back Jake Moilanen with his kernel genetic stuff :) and I'm happy :)
_________________
linux-2.6.17 +ck +R4 +lockless +genetic-as +... więcej nie pamiętam :)
LRU #299256
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5733

PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just updated to .31-rc8...

Holy crap... I think BFS just made my Folding@Home run 25% faster! (11 minutes per 1% -> 7½ minutes)

The downside is that it seems to break compcache... but for a speedup like this I can ignore that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ponciarello
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 223
Location: beach of slack

PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt

:D

manually applied this patch to master-2.6.30: all ok :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rahulthewall
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 1264
Location: Zürich

PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fails to compile:

Code:

  MODPOST vmlinux.o
WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x2148db): Section mismatch in reference from the function pcibios_scan_specific_bus() to the function .devinit.text:pci_scan_bus_on_node()
The function pcibios_scan_specific_bus() references
the function __devinit pci_scan_bus_on_node().
This is often because pcibios_scan_specific_bus lacks a __devinit
annotation or the annotation of pci_scan_bus_on_node is wrong.

WARNING: vmlinux.o(__ksymtab_gpl+0x23d8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable __ksymtab_pci_legacy_init to the function .init.text:pci_legacy_init()
The symbol pci_legacy_init is exported and annotated __init
Fix this by removing the __init annotation of pci_legacy_init or drop the export.

  GEN     .version
  CHK     include/linux/compile.h
dnsdomainname: Unknown host
  UPD     include/linux/compile.h
  CC      init/version.o
  LD      init/built-in.o
  LD      .tmp_vmlinux1
kernel/built-in.o: In function `perf_counter_remove_from_context':
perf_counter.c:(.text+0x30162): undefined reference to `task_oncpu_function_call'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `perf_counter_disable':
perf_counter.c:(.text+0x30283): undefined reference to `task_oncpu_function_call'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `perf_counter_enable':
perf_counter.c:(.text+0x30334): undefined reference to `task_oncpu_function_call'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `perf_install_in_context':
perf_counter.c:(.text+0x303a1): undefined reference to `task_oncpu_function_call'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

_________________
Who shall guard the guards?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 2 of 12

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum