Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Features You Won't Find In The Linux 3.9 Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    Can't they put an if (numCores < 8) { useBFS(); } else { useCFS(); } ?
    They could but they wouldn't want to. Linus has always emphasized that schedulers need to work well across the board to be acceptable. While 8 cores might seem fairly big now, mobile phones will be running that in a few years. None of the mainstream distributions will be interested in a scheduler that isn't generic but only works for some configurations.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Sad to see reliable re-clicking support for Nouveau isn't on the list.
    Personally, I would really love to see that!

    Lack of AMD UVD support is something that harms AMD, and in the coming months I might buy a new computer, and then AMD won't even be an option.
    Not gonna buy something thats not porno-compatible.

    Personally, I would like to see further ARM multi-platform work.
    Further improvements to the work that was introduced in version 3.7 of the Linux kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    BFS won't be included unless someone reworks it to make it scalable. In its current state it doesn't scale well beyond 8 CPUs/cores.

    Reliable Nouveau Re-Clocking is the most sought feature on this list.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serafean
    replied
    Among features that are being actively blocked from inclusion you missed tuxonice. But this article is a pretty nice write-up nice out-of-tree features.
    Why mention not publically worked on stuff (UVD) is beyond me...

    Leave a comment:


  • zanny
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    That article is a bit disingenuous. Some of those features arent going to make it it into -any- kernel ever.
    Back in 2004 a lot of people would have said no one would have changed the O(1) scheduler, but then popular opinion turned against it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxhippy
    replied
    So, if those features are not in 3.9, whats the reason writing about?
    Seems you have a hard time meeting some secret goals of posting frequency you are trying to reach.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    That article is a bit disingenuous. Some of those features arent going to make it it into -any- kernel ever.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X