Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: The Linux Desktop Responsiveness Patches Are Feeling Good

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,193

    Default The Linux Desktop Responsiveness Patches Are Feeling Good

    Phoronix: The Linux Desktop Responsiveness Patches Are Feeling Good

    As was reported on Phoronix yesterday, the Linux desktop responsiveness problem may be fixed. This is the issue that has affected many Linux desktop users for numerous months where when dealing with large file transfers or other disk operations, the desktop interface (regardless of whether its GNOME, KDE, Xfce, etc) would become unresponsive and it could be a good number of seconds before a simple action like clicking a menu item would be processed...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODQ3OQ

  2. #2

    Default

    Your assumption is wrong. KernelofTruth's backport only contains 2 out of 7 of the patches. There are 5 additional that he did not backport:

    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p...0.html#6377520

    Please try to do fact checks on your assumptions in the future before reporting them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Oh there's 7 patches that all together fix the issue?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Oh there's 7 patches that all together fix the issue?
    indeed, but they are more tricky to backpart

    at least starting with the 3rd patch I tried it and parts of the code are spread all over the file

    since I'm not that experienced I'm waiting for someone else to backport (most favorably the zen-kernel devs )

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    indeed, but they are more tricky to backpart

    at least starting with the 3rd patch I tried it and parts of the code are spread all over the file

    since I'm not that experienced I'm waiting for someone else to backport (most favorably the zen-kernel devs )
    Damentz (he's one of the zen devs) has some experience with backporting patches so he might take a crack at backporting all 7 patches to 2.6.35 (and maybe 2.6.34)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Damentz (he's one of the zen devs) has some experience with backporting patches so he might take a crack at backporting all 7 patches to 2.6.35 (and maybe 2.6.34)
    I backported them two days ago -> http://git.zen-kernel.org/?p=kernel/...eads/mm-2.6.34

    You'll want to merge this branch into your 2.6.34 kernel tree.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by damentz View Post
    I backported them two days ago -> http://git.zen-kernel.org/?p=kernel/...eads/mm-2.6.34

    You'll want to merge this branch into your 2.6.34 kernel tree.
    Great!

    You put them all into your latest 2.6.35 kernel right?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    640

    Default

    since I'm pretty busy - I unfortunately can't do the further backporting

    anyways: the results already are pretty impressive considering that it's only a small amount of code that's been added / removed (those 2 patches)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    I thought this was FUD, but it was true? Linux could not handle things without lagging sometimes? And now, is the situation better or does it still occur?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    I thought this was FUD, but it was true? Linux could not handle things without lagging sometimes? And now, is the situation better or does it still occur?
    it was true for some time in the past (for me)

    from my observation it most probably got worse / introduced after 2.6.34 since that kernel was working excellent for me back then - even under heavy traffic


    luckily with those lots of changes and the other improvements coming (e.g. reducing barrier writing, a unified slab (v3), and more) the future looks bright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •