The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-01-31
, 10:51
|
Posts: 1,101 |
Thanked: 1,184 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Spain
|
#92
|
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.
|
2012-01-31
, 15:20
|
Posts: 268 |
Thanked: 1,053 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ The Netherlands
|
#93
|
|
2012-02-01
, 09:47
|
|
Posts: 5,028 |
Thanked: 8,613 times |
Joined on Mar 2011
|
#94
|
|
2012-02-01
, 11:02
|
Posts: 1,101 |
Thanked: 1,184 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Spain
|
#95
|
the most troubling issue of kernel-bfs - limitation of network bandwidth - isn't present in kernel-pwck?
/Estel
|
2012-04-15
, 23:58
|
Posts: 47 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Scarbrough
|
#96
|
|
2012-04-16
, 00:51
|
Posts: 701 |
Thanked: 585 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ London, England
|
#97
|
The Following User Says Thank You to retsaw For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-16
, 02:56
|
Posts: 47 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Scarbrough
|
#98
|
|
2012-04-16
, 03:22
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#99
|
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.
Last edited by iDont; 2012-01-30 at 22:59.