LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-04-2014, 03:19 PM   #31
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware [64]X{.0|.1|.2|-current} ::X>=12<=14, FreeBSD_10{.0|.1}
Posts: 2,179

Rep: Reputation: 856Reputation: 856Reputation: 856Reputation: 856Reputation: 856Reputation: 856Reputation: 856

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarfields View Post
astrogeek, this is hilarious
I can't take credit for it - I saw it linked in another thread here some time ago. Now every time I see talk of optimizing for speed I think of it. It is hilarious, and often so close to the mark!
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-04-2014, 04:05 PM   #32
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,845
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188
You could also rebuild every Slackware package with the -O3 optimization level rather than -O2 default, but you risk serious instability issues if you do.
 
Old 01-04-2014, 04:49 PM   #33
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,532

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
You could also rebuild every Slackware package with the -O3 optimization level rather than -O2 default, but you risk serious instability issues if you do.
That is not a good idea, and the costs would outweigh the benefits, especially stability-wise. Using '-march=native' is safe, while '-O3' is not guaranteed to be. With so many packages to rebuild the time used would not be worth the minor performance increase.
 
Old 01-04-2014, 06:20 PM   #34
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,845
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188
Exactly. Often you'll find that running correctly and stably doesn't involve calculating speed into the equation.
 
Old 01-04-2014, 07:18 PM   #35
grothen
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2013
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
so do you stick with the default kernel or do you upgrade with new releases?
 
Old 01-04-2014, 07:29 PM   #36
moisespedro
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Brazil
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,140

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 152Reputation: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by grothen View Post
so do you stick with the default kernel or do you upgrade with new releases?
If there is no need I don't upgrade it
 
Old 01-04-2014, 09:17 PM   #37
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 485

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I tend to kernel-hop until the system stops having issues. Although, to be fair, sometimes I just upgrade because the new features sound awesome (I doubt I get any detectable benefit from them). Thankfully, Pat updates configs quite often. As it stands, I've been using 3.10.17 since late October, and it's been highly stable, so I won't upgrade until a truly grave security or stability issue is discovered, such a critical ext4 bug.
 
Old 01-05-2014, 03:49 AM   #38
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,845
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188
I tend to stick to the kernel I build my SVN of LFS with which is usually the latest stable kernel. After that, it is only recompiled as needed to add modules or features. When I used Slackware, I stuck to whatever the -Current tree kernel was.
 
Old 01-05-2014, 05:12 AM   #39
Claudiu.Ionel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2013
Location: home
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by moisespedro View Post
I am trying to have my system as fast as posible and was searching for custom kernels like zen-kernel, for example. But I didn't find any reason to use them, it doesn't seem they make that much of a difference. What do you think?
You can make your system run at it's best if you use all the hardware you have in it. So your system will always be as fast as your hardware is, or slower if there are some bugs in the system. Generally you can change the Kernel ( the heart of your system ) if you try to use some new feature that it has been implemented into it. Let's say if you run some new fancy laptop you should use a 3.2 <= Kernel .
Also you should update your kernel if there are some important security concerns, some bugs, or incompatibilities with something ...
A good place to learn more about the Kernel is at his home : https://www.kernel.org/ . Be sure to read the changelogs if you are interested to see what bugs have been fixed and other stuff.
 
Old 01-05-2014, 06:16 AM   #40
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,139
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I'm usually satisfied with the generic kernel. I've only tampered with it once, that was before Slack64 came out, to get it to "see" more than 3.2 GB RAM.
 
Old 01-06-2014, 07:51 PM   #41
rogan
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 8
I always "roll my own" and usually the latest of the series that comes with
Slackware. Sometimes there are some speed benefits if you include only drivers
and options necessary for your machine (and use).

Even the "generic" kernel is a pretty big beast with frame-pointers, tracers and
lots of debug stuff. Very useful if something goes bad and you have to find out
what happened.

I don't want that functionality. I usually just do a
make allnoconfig && make menuconfig and fill in the stuff that's necessary.
If I don't need modules I make it monolithic. These days with the nouveau driver
I don't see any real reason not to.

Is there a difference? Well I've done some tests. I found a small benchmarking
program here: http://www.unix.com/source/bm.zip. If you want to run it, just unpack
an execute ./Run, takes about an hour. Don't even try to compile anything in there.
The code is ancient and gcc barfs immediately. Some of the tests wont complete
correctly, I've included the ones that do.

Tests on 'generic' (with the deadline scheduler):

BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 3.11)
System -- Linux 3.10.17 #1 SMP Wed Oct 23 2013
x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) 9650 Quad-Core Processor AuthenticAMD
GNU/Linux
Start Benchmark Run: Mon Jan 6 2014.

Dhrystone 2 without register variables 12299645.3 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 12471500.5 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
C Compiler Test 979.3 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 119317.6 lpm (60 secs, 6 samples)
Recursion Test--Tower of Hanoi 117369.4 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
System Call Overhead Test 2569626.8 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Pipe Throughput Test 1544249.7 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Process Creation Test 9651.5 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Read (10 seconds) 4786429.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Write (10 seconds) 1324905.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Copy (10 seconds) 122986.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Read (30 seconds) 4776556.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)
File Write (30 seconds) 1162625.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)
File Copy (30 seconds) 84572.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)

Tests on a monolithic kernel (deadline scheduler):

BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 3.11)
System -- Linux 3.10.25-mono #1 SMP Mon Jan 6 2014
x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) 9650 Quad-Core Processor AuthenticAMD
GNU/Linux
Start Benchmark Run: Mon Jan 6 2014.

Dhrystone 2 without register variables 12222226.7 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 12313789.8 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
C Compiler Test 1004.3 lpm (60 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 129666.7 lpm (60 secs, 6 samples)
Recursion Test--Tower of Hanoi 129083.8 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
System Call Overhead Test 2633972.7 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Pipe Throughput Test 1574751.0 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
Process Creation Test 9394.2 lps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Read (10 seconds) 5439652.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Write (10 seconds) 1368310.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Copy (10 seconds) 125975.0 KBps (10 secs, 6 samples)
File Read (30 seconds) 5509959.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)
File Write (30 seconds) 1202322.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)
File Copy (30 seconds) 84547.0 KBps (30 secs, 6 samples)

The main difference seems to be in the memory subsystem (files get cached
pretty much instantly with 4G ram). Read speeds are significantly higher.

I guess I'll stick with this one.
 
Old 01-06-2014, 11:03 PM   #42
narz
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: US
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 184

Rep: Reputation: 35
I rebuild my kernel with the CK/BFS patch. I don't know that it performs any better than the generic kernel but the BFS scheduler is designed for better interactivity and lower latencies, which I think is important. I also make my kernel preemptible and I turn off dynamic ticks as recommended by Con Kolivas.
 
Old 01-06-2014, 11:50 PM   #43
lems
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware x86/x86_64/ARM, NetBSD
Posts: 165

Rep: Reputation: 56
I built the 3.12.6 kernel. It boots a bit faster than the -huge kernel I used previously, and: YouTube videos with pipelight run smoother than before. They weren't really choppy, but the image would stand still for a short period of time occasionally. I don't know if it's because I set CONFIG_PREEMPT (I chose low-latency desktop) or because of the newer kernel, but it's a nice improvement.
 
Old 01-07-2014, 11:51 PM   #44
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446
For a standard Slackware kernel there are some optimizations you could do:

1. Set the CPU family to match your actual CPU instead of CONFIG_M486 or CONFIG_MPENTIUMIII.

2. If you're on a desktop, you could rebuild the kernel with CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP enabled. It doesn't give you more throughput, but should result in a more responsive user experience. Same goes for CONFIG_PREEMPT.

3. If you're on Slackware 32 bit (for any reasons), you could install a 64 bit kernel. On machines with more than 1 GB RAM this results in better performance.

4. You could replace in-kernel drivers with better performing external drivers, like r8168, nvidia and fglrx.

That's it basically. On a modern PC there is no point in building a "minimal kernel" or using weird compiler flags.

Last edited by jtsn; 01-08-2014 at 12:07 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-07-2014, 11:56 PM   #45
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,845
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188Reputation: 1188
Number 4 is going to be a good debate due to the politics of those drivers. However, drivers from an OEM source being official will carry better scheduling and timing factors than the normal open source derivatives, at least until they catch up.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting Assertion `kernels [x] == kernels [x]' failed with emulator in Slackware 14 Holering Slackware 1 05-10-2013 04:43 PM
backward compatibility in kernels + custom kernels + more queries mmp_3341 Linux - Kernel 1 04-12-2007 08:28 AM
Now I Have Two Kernels comprookie2000 Red Hat 3 03-04-2004 08:58 PM
RH 8 kernels and their relation to 'stock' kernels psweetma Linux - Distributions 1 03-29-2003 11:46 PM
kernels watashiwaotaku7 General 2 12-26-2002 09:42 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration