LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
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 11-18-2003, 10:58 PM   #1
no noob_slacker
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: 0
What do i need to build custom kernel!!


Hi I installed slackware 9 four days ago and found that KDE loads slow. Also the kernel boots up with loads of stuff I think i dont need. One way of making the kernel faster is to compile it with your custom settings. Now what would i require for that. For example would i need graphics card drivers, mobo drivers, sound card and usb drivers etc. Any help wwould be appreciated..

Thanks

Last edited by no noob_slacker; 11-18-2003 at 11:01 PM.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 12:26 AM   #2
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Rep: Reputation: 30
im not sure I know what your asking, that sounds like a windows user type of question (not that thats a bad thing) but the Linux kernel comes with 99% of the drivers you need (for basic computer use). you dont need to go scrounging around to find the specific driver for your motherboard and hard drive. they'r is most likely already in the kernel source.

so to answer your question: you need the kernel source, and extencive knowledge about your hardware.

my opinion is "if it aint broke, dont fix it" if your running KDE its probably gona be slower than windows anyways, recompiling the kernel wont help you. try a lighter WM, I myselfe have a slow computer, but using a minimal install and fluxbox, my Slackware run faster than windows. (all on the default kernel)
 
Old 11-19-2003, 01:54 AM   #3
repe
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware 9.0 & 9.1. FreeBSD 4.8 & 5.1
Posts: 30

Rep: Reputation: 15
Read http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=49035 and learn
 
Old 11-19-2003, 04:06 AM   #4
adz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Debian, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,713

Rep: Reputation: 53
...and be prepared for your first couple of kernels to not-boot.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 04:26 AM   #5
nvn
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Sweden
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 242

Rep: Reputation: 30
Uhm, is that common? Elementary knowledge of one's hardware + the ability to rtfm + common sense = working kernel. Never failed for me.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 04:48 AM   #6
adz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Debian, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,713

Rep: Reputation: 53
Yeah first few kernels I ever compiled didn't boot. You have a LOT of options and the nomenclature can be somewhat different to other OSes.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 06:55 AM   #7
Kjetil4455
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Norway/Drammen
Distribution: Slackware~
Posts: 250

Rep: Reputation: 30
be sure to cenable the Filesystems you use, and to make the modules for the hardware that you use.

good luck
 
Old 11-19-2003, 07:02 AM   #8
adz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Debian, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,713

Rep: Reputation: 53
By enable he means throw them into the kernel proper not as a module.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 07:20 AM   #9
no noob_slacker
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 17

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
And exactly how would you not put them as modules but throw them in the kernel?? Any links please.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 07:23 AM   #10
adz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Debian, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,713

Rep: Reputation: 53
You'll have three options: (Y)es, (N)o, and (M)odule. Choose yes.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 07:24 AM   #11
Kjetil4455
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Norway/Drammen
Distribution: Slackware~
Posts: 250

Rep: Reputation: 30
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally posted by adz
By enable he means throw them into the kernel proper not as a module.
yeah, but you enable some things, and other things you compile as modules.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 07:46 AM   #12
no noob_slacker
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 17

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
conflicting statements. Some say that you cannot add all the stuff to kernel meaning that you load modules. Now I am confused
 
Old 11-19-2003, 09:05 AM   #13
DaOne
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 498

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by no noob_slacker
conflicting statements. Some say that you cannot add all the stuff to kernel meaning that you load modules. Now I am confused
In my opinion, it is better to compile the support as modules rather than into the kernel. It helps keep the kernel smaller and small kernel=fast kernel.

There are exceptions to this...some things need to be, or just work better if compiled into the kernel. Other things (such as hardware specific support) are better off as modules. The modules are autoloaded. The bottom line is that the system runs better when the kernel only has compiled into it what needs to be...the rest are modules...IMO of course.

I hope this makes sense. Some could even argue that it's a matter of preference as well.
 
Old 11-19-2003, 10:24 AM   #14
adz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Debian, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,713

Rep: Reputation: 53
Yes But I was specificaly remarking about filesystems. Ext2, ext3 and reiser should be compiled into the kernel. Support for whatever is your primary hard disk (be it IDE or SCSI) is also required in the kernel. Basically, if you need it to get you off the ground then put it into the kernel. Audio, video, network, other non-critical filesystems, and whatever else can be (and possibly SHOULD be) made as modules.

One thing that took me a while to work out was make EVERYTHING you can as modules. In other words, if you have a soundblaster card, compile the module for it and EVERY OTHER card. That way, if you get a new piece of hardware, you don't have to recompile the kernel. I've done this and the modules take up about 15-18 Mb per kernel. It's a good idea unless you're REALLY strapped for hard disk space.
 
Old 11-20-2003, 04:57 PM   #15
JustSlack
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Gurnee, IL
Distribution: Mandrake
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
What about getting the config file from /boot? Just a little
cp /boot/config /usr/src/linux/
Gives the kernel and modules config...modify from there.
Cheating...perhaps. But at least you have a model to follow. Just trim out the excess modules. Don't have ISA? Take it out! If you take out something you need then you'll get errors and learn.
 
  


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
How to build MPPE support into custom linux kernel reddyl Suse/Novell 2 01-20-2006 08:38 AM
Slackware 10.1 installation with custom build kernel zWaR Slackware 5 08-09-2005 02:29 AM
Boot process stops after custom kernel build FuzzyDuc Debian 3 11-28-2004 06:47 AM
New FAQ topic: Should I edit my kernel configuration?/Should I build a custom kernel? chort *BSD 10 09-10-2004 11:15 PM
how to make modifications to a custom kernel build? h/w Linux - Newbie 2 11-09-2003 03:47 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 PM.

Main Menu
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