Where is 2.6.32?

[Bill Davidsen]

john wendel wrote:
> On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>> And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
>>>> regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
>>>> developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
>>>
>>> I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
>>> For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx 
>>> driver
>>>
>> You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules
>> which are not GPL, when he mentioned 2.6.32.2+Nvidia. So it would only
>> me tainted if he wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have
>> changed, things are not the same for long.
>>
> 
> 
> Who needs the Fedora patches? I'm not missing them here. Can you tell me 
> exactly the patches I'm missing and what they would do for me? If these 
> patches are so valuable, why aren't they submitted upstream so the world 
> can benefit. Maybe because Linus doesn't want them?
> 
> I haven't noticed any disk performance regression/problem. Maybe I don't 
> beat it hard enough. hdparm -Tt shows 60.84 MB/s with the fedora kernel 
> and 61.09 MB/s with my kernel. I know there's a CFS throughput problem, 
> but that's easily fixed.
> 
You probably won't see a problem with random access using the hdpart sequential 
access test ;-) But there's a thread in LKML something like" 30% regression in 
random throughput" and depending on what you do you will really see that.

> My Fedora kernel would also be tainted, since I have to run the Nvidia 
> driver in any case.
> 
> I don't see any down side to running my own kernel. Plus I save 8MB of 
> kernel memory (enough to negate the bloated Nvidia driver), and I enjoy 
> the tweaking.
> 
I was mentioning 2.6.32 particularly, not building kernels in general. I built 
that to try the new video drivers (lock up and run 3x slower than vesa for me), 
and BFS (guess I don't trigger anything that shows its advantages, if any). But 
I don't bother to build daily kernels unless there a good reason. Been there 
done that, ran -ck, -aa, -mm, and -ac kernels, built 2.5 kernels daily, 3-4/day 
when CFS patches were coming out a lot, and unless I have a patch to test I 
leave it to others.
> Best wishes in the new year!
> 
> John
> 


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot