Package Details: linux-ck 6.12.1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-ck.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: linux-ck
Description: The Linux kernel and modules with ck's hrtimer patches
Upstream URL: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Linux-ck
Licenses: GPL-2.0-only
Provides: KSMBD-MODULE, VIRTUALBOX-GUEST-MODULES, WIREGUARD-MODULE
Replaces: virtualbox-guest-modules-arch, wireguard-arch
Submitter: graysky
Maintainer: graysky
Last Packager: graysky
Votes: 459
Popularity: 0.24
First Submitted: 2011-07-22 14:51 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-23 13:58 (UTC)

Dependencies (14)

Required by (7)

Sources (6)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 .. 308 Next › Last »

graysky commented on 2013-03-04 21:55 (UTC)

@PG - Sure. Like SW said, any of the menu based methods are fine.

wuffleton commented on 2013-03-04 15:52 (UTC)

@PerfectGentleman: It would be perfectly valid to do such a thing on your end. Although I personally find nconfig simpler and more intuitive, you could modify your local PKGBUILD to include any of the *config options if you find one of the X-based tools to be more comfortable.

PerfectGentleman commented on 2013-03-04 12:33 (UTC)

i have KDE. so, is it okay to change "make nconfig" to "make xconfig" in PKGBUILD ?

crondog commented on 2013-03-04 10:02 (UTC)

3.8.2 is now available :)

graysky commented on 2013-03-04 08:49 (UTC)

OK.. I understand now: the path changed. Thank you crondog. Updated but not bumping the pkgver. For others - Plz don't flag out-of-date if a source path changes; it makes me think I missed something upstream or with ARCH.

crondog commented on 2013-03-04 01:49 (UTC)

Just to let you know the ck patch is located at http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/3.0/3.8/3.8-ck1/patch-3.8-ck1.bz2

graysky commented on 2013-03-03 19:19 (UTC)

@Misc - BFS is still superior using a non-latency endpoint, my make-based benchmark tested now on two machines: i7-3770K @ 4.5 GHz (9 threads) i7-2620M @ 2.7 GHz (5 threads) Conclusion: BFS v0.428 _clearly_ differentiates itself from CFS in mainline 3.8.1. Results on machine #1: http://s19.postimage.org/jkil3zx83/3770_K.png Results on machine #2: http://s19.postimage.org/uy54f77qr/2620_M.png These analyses are an ANOVA showing you the time it took to compile (y-axis in sec) each of the 9 runs under each kernel (x-axis). Black dots = time points. Green diamonds = 95 % confidence intervals. The circles to the right are comparison circles. If these are separated, the differences in average times are statistically significant. In other words, BFS is still faster than CFS. This is true for both machines tested. Note that I will expand this to a few other machines in the next few days. Code to benchmark script is 'make_bench' and can be found on my github: https://github.com/graysky2/bin The benchmark simply runs `make -jx bzImage` 9 times and logs the total time to build to a log file for analysis. This the same analysis I did in my study of them a few months ago which is available here: http://repo-ck.com/bench/cpu_schedulers_compared.pdf P.S. Sorry for multiple posts. Cannot edit as you know.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 .. 308 Next › Last »