The same question to everyone who feels s/he can contribute.
[/AD]
I appreciate the offer, but I don't think that I'm cut out for the job. I do hope that the kernel-power team will find an extra pair of hands soon though, what you guys are pulling off with such a small amount of resources is, quite simply put, amazing.
By the way, there might be some patches in kernel-bfs that could be harvested for kernel-power. Patches worth mentioning are the updated UBIFS module (source), some of CK's responsiveness patches (e.g. mm-lru_cache_add_lru_tail-1.patch, mm-kswapd_inherit_prio-1.patch & mm-lots_watermark.diff, maybe mm-background_scan-2.patch), and the BFQ I/O scheduler.
I'm not sure whether all of the mentioned patches are too bleeding edge to be included in kernel-power though. At least the UBIFS patch is pretty well tested and the CK patches aren't too invasive.
The BFQ I/O scheduler should be approached with some caution however; we had some issues with functions that were depreciated in kernel 2.6.32 (from which the backport originates), but OTOH it can be built as a separate module, so it isn't forced upon anyone.
I appreciate the offer, but I don't think that I'm cut out for the job. I do hope that the kernel-power team will find an extra pair of hands soon though, what you guys are pulling off with such a small amount of resources is, quite simply put, amazing.
By the way, there might be some patches in kernel-bfs that could be harvested for kernel-power. Patches worth mentioning are the updated UBIFS module (source), some of CK's responsiveness patches (e.g. mm-lru_cache_add_lru_tail-1.patch, mm-kswapd_inherit_prio-1.patch & mm-lots_watermark.diff, maybe mm-background_scan-2.patch), and the BFQ I/O scheduler.
I'm not sure whether all of the mentioned patches are too bleeding edge to be included in kernel-power though. At least the UBIFS patch is pretty well tested and the CK patches aren't too invasive.
The BFQ I/O scheduler should be approached with some caution however; we had some issues with functions that were depreciated in kernel 2.6.32 (from which the backport originates), but OTOH it can be built as a separate module, so it isn't forced upon anyone.
Well, actually my kernel-pwck is kernel-power with those patches integrated. So far I haven't seen any trouble, but I haven't done any performance measurements either, so I can't assess how much they affect responsiveness or performance.
Well, actually my kernel-pwck is kernel-power with those patches integrated. So far I haven't seen any trouble, but I haven't done any performance measurements either, so I can't assess how much they affect responsiveness or performance.
Guess what I've been using for the past weeks . I have yet to encounter any issues as well.
the most troubling issue of kernel-bfs - limitation of network bandwidth - isn't present in kernel-pwck?
/Estel
No, scheduler and drivers are the same as kernel-power.
I have also observed lower network bandwidth in my N810 kernels using SD scheduler, so I guess it's a common problem of Con's schedulers.
okey i am seriously confeused... i mean i don't know alot but please can any one explain me where can i frind command for kernel bfs.. if there are none then how to find out wether it is working or not.. is it that u just install it ansd it starts working... can any one please explain.... Thanks
After you install the kernel you need to reboot, so if you haven't done that already do it now. Then you can check which kernel you are running with the command "uname -r" in the X Terminal.
Retsaw thanks for the reply but i wanted to know does it have it's own commands like the kernel v49 has like kernel-config show or kernel-config limit etc..
i know bfs do not need to be tunned or adjusted but is there any command which would show any function ?
It has the same power kernel commands such as kernel-config show. There are subleties I don't know about. Since it is essentally abandoned for now, I think you might be better off using kernel-pwck, but that is up to you.
