Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux 3.14 Kernel Released

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the get-it-while-it's-hot dept.

Linux 132

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux 3.14 "Shuffling Zombie Juror" kernel has been released. Significant improvements to Linux 3.14 include the mainlining of SCHED_DEADLINE, stable support for Intel Broadwell CPU graphics, Xen PVH support, stable support for ZRAM, and many other additions. There's also a tentative feature list on KernelNewbies.org."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PI KERNEL (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620297)

Yay! We've finally reached that!

Re:PI KERNEL (0)

CaptSlaq (1491233) | about 7 months ago | (#46620303)

Yay! We've finally reached that!

And it's delicious.

Re:PI KERNEL (5, Insightful)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 7 months ago | (#46620407)

To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14

HOW DELICIOUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621201)

MARCH 14 such DELICIOUS so AMAZE
 
lolololol i r funny

Re:PI KERNEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622641)

your sig is bad :)

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#46623439)

To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14

Just in time!!!

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 7 months ago | (#46620461)

and well rounded

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46623267)

it's more of a octagon than a circle...

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 7 months ago | (#46620831)

Everyone loves Pi!

Re:PI KERNEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622391)

especially with cream..

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

suso (153703) | about 7 months ago | (#46621375)

And there are quite a few references to pi in the patch, not sure if it was intentional or not.

https://twitter.com/climagic/s... [twitter.com]

Re:PI KERNEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621715)

Year of the Linux ATM.

Re:PI KERNEL (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#46623453)

We could stay on it for ever - next version would be 3.141, then 3.1415, then 3.14159 and so on

Release day (0)

wooferhound (546132) | about 7 months ago | (#46620299)

They should have released it on Pi Day

Re:Release day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620377)

You have been automatically downmodded due to a retarded sig.

Re:Release day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620443)

There are sigs on Slashdot?

Re:Release day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622085)

You must be using BETA.

Re:Release day (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 7 months ago | (#46622765)

Anything below a leading "--" is a sig.

Re:Release day (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 7 months ago | (#46620953)

To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14

(Replied to wrong comment at first)

Re:Release day (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#46623465)

You mean as on March 14th, as opposed to March 2014?

WOW! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620333)

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620405)

A Mac with the tech specs to an equivalent PC also costs double price.

Re:WOW! (-1, Troll)

tigersha (151319) | about 7 months ago | (#46620695)

Yeah but it also gets the job done. My colleague is a Linux Zealot. I use a Mac. I am at least 2.5-3 times more productive than he is.

Seriously, my car also costs 15 times a much as my bike but it also gets more done. Also, my Macbook Pro is 7 years old and looks like new.

Re:WOW! (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#46620969)

My colleague is a Linux Zealot. I use a Mac. I am at least 2.5-3 times more productive than he is.

Linus Torvalds is much more productive than you. He uses Linux. You should definitely switch.

Seriously, my car also costs 15 times a much as my bike but it also gets more done.

You're not coming across as a "different tools for different jobs" kind of a person. This makes me inclined to believe that you're the zealot not your coworker. Bikes and cars do not fit in the same categories and neither is a replacement for the other.

Also, my Macbook Pro is 7 years old and looks like new.

So?

Re:WOW! (1, Offtopic)

Ioldanach (88584) | about 7 months ago | (#46621217)

Also, my Macbook Pro is 7 years old and looks like new.

So?

And here we have the crux of the Mac v. Linux argument.

Re:WOW! (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#46621425)

And here we have the crux of the Mac v. Linux argument.

Well not really. I'm not the kind of person who believes that CPU speed is the only spec that matters,

A 7 year old machine is getting quite long in the tooth. At 7 years old, compared to a new machine, it will be slow, limited RAM, heavy, have a completely usless spinning optical drive, a slow, spinning hard disk near the end of its servicable life on the end of a slow SATA link almost certainly an ageing battery and by modern standards a rather anemic sceen resolution and the backlight will be faded out considerably. And it will be heavy too.

At 7 years on it won't be a good machine in any regards, unless the author has spent a good deal on upgrades in which case it's hardly a 7 year old machine and substantially more expensive too.

Also, I frankly don't believe the author that it "looks like new" unless he's never used it as a laptop (i.e. carried it around). Cases (even metal ones) get scratched. Keys get dirty because even clean fingers have grease on. Things get worn if they're exposed to the environment. And if it hasn't been, well, my that's a pointless statement since anything untouched will look like new in 7 years except food.

Re:WOW! (1)

Wing_Zero (692394) | about 7 months ago | (#46622127)

I don't know about 7 years old being BAD per say, I have a toshiba laptop that i bought 6-7 years ago, and despite it being a core duo, i think it still runs great.

the hard drive part I will agree with, but that is a easy fix, a sata-usb cable costs $25 (including drive clone software) and a 1TB HD is around $100

I paid around $600 for this laptop, and i think it run circles around some of the budget laptops out now. the ONLY upgrade i've done is the hard drive, and i might think of the battery sometime, but it stays plugged in most of the time, so not too important.

not a big gamer, but i have a HTPC that is WAY over Spec'ed, would rather game on that anyway.

Re:WOW! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 7 months ago | (#46622591)

I've got an Acer laptop I bought in 2005. It has a 2.6 GHz Celeron--living proof that they did, once upon a time, make computers with only one CPU!--and 2 GB RAM. The CD-ROM drive is toast, and more than about 30 minutes of full-screen video heats it up to the point where I have to let it cool off for a few minutes; otherwise it does pretty well, all things considered. Not sure why I keep it around except that it still runs.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624359)

And I've got a 2004 Sony VAIO laptop, with a 1.7GHz celeron, 1GB of RAM (it can't take more; damned address lines), and a stunning 1920x1200 17" LCD display (sticker said Radeon 9700, HW diagnostics say Radeon 9600). Its battery is still the original, and has almost as much capacity as when it was new. I did replace the HDD though; the 80GB disk it came with (biggest option at the time) was way too small after a few years. It runs Xubuntu, and it goes quite well.

Re:WOW! (5, Interesting)

deviated_prevert (1146403) | about 7 months ago | (#46622377)

And here we have the crux of the Mac v. Linux argument.

Well not really. I'm not the kind of person who believes that CPU speed is the only spec that matters,

A 7 year old machine is getting quite long in the tooth. At 7 years old, compared to a new machine, it will be slow, limited RAM, heavy, have a completely usless spinning optical drive, a slow, spinning hard disk near the end of its servicable life on the end of a slow SATA link almost certainly an ageing battery and by modern standards a rather anemic sceen resolution and the backlight will be faded out considerably. And it will be heavy too.

At 7 years on it won't be a good machine in any regards, unless the author has spent a good deal on upgrades in which case it's hardly a 7 year old machine and substantially more expensive too.

Also, I frankly don't believe the author that it "looks like new" unless he's never used it as a laptop (i.e. carried it around). Cases (even metal ones) get scratched. Keys get dirty because even clean fingers have grease on. Things get worn if they're exposed to the environment. And if it hasn't been, well, my that's a pointless statement since anything untouched will look like new in 7 years except food.

Further to your points about the stylish mac users comments right now I am running Mint 16 DEBIAN on an IBM T42 from 2005. It has 1.5 meg of ram a long in the tooth 48 meg onboard radion 7500 vid. The processor is not even pae for crying out loud and I can still run GOOGLE EARTH 6 .386 AND SPIN THE GLOBE ON LINUX WHILE I POST THIS DITTY RUNNING SPINNING GLOBE ON A SECOND DISPLAY FROM THE VGA PORT.

The nine cell aftermarket battery still gets me 4-6 hours depending on air time with the agb wireless. MIND you I only do this at a maximum 1024x768 as I write music notation or whatever on this little gem of a computer with Open Source Software or do whatever kind of correspondence in any file format you want. PDFs, XLS, .DOCX it does not matter I can create it all effectively with several different pieces of software, heck I can even transcode short .MOV vids in 720p on this little gem without taxing the proc too much

EAT YOUR HART out Windows and MAC users. I am not kidding... LINUX IS GETTING THAT FAR AHEAD OF YOU. And with the addition of stable 3.14 RT kernel out of the box it will only get better.

And that is the beauty of Linux in general the more you keep up with the Jones' Apple and Windows users sell off your old 'puters dirt cheap the better Linux gets! OUT OF THE BOX with Linux this little laptop (tm)Linux Just Works with a well done nonpae capable distro. Of course if you do not understand what I just posted take off your glasses and read it carefully for it is the truth. Linux users can do stuff with older hardware that you can without paying a frigging fortune to do it!! And that is why helping out the people who build OSS like Linux is a great thing. PERIOD EOF

Re:WOW! (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | about 7 months ago | (#46624267)

A 7 year old machine is getting quite long in the tooth.

Maybe, maybe not. Per-core performance has basically flat-lined for the last 7 years. Long-gone are the days where clock speeds doubled every 12-18 months or where buying a new PC would get you something that ran 4-8x faster then the one you had from 3-4 years ago.

At the moment, I'm still using a 2007-era Thinkpad T61p (Core2 Duo 2.2GHz, 8GB RAM, Win7 Pro, SSD). It originally shipped with WinXP, 4GB RAM and a 7200 RPM HD. This is still the machine I use for the majority of my work.

The main advantage I have is that before the 4yr warranty ran out, I made *sure* to have it serviced, so it has a new backlight, new keyboard (which was acting up), etc.

Is it slow? Eh, the CPU is not the zippiest and I would definitely prefer a faster quad-core, but it still works well enough that I'm not ready to spend $2200 on a new Thinkpad. I have a much more powerful desktop sitting beside me for things that need raw CPU power.

Really, the thing that makes it still usable is the SSD. Without that I would have given up on it years ago. It's why we are putting SSDs on all the desktops at the office. With a good SSD, you spend a lot less time twiddling your fingers and less fear that if you do X that you can't do Y at the same time because of disk contention.

Re:WOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621273)

Linus Torvalds is much more productive than you. He uses Linux. You should definitely switch.

He's not all that productive. Part of the reason is due to the slow, bloated, buggy X server that he has to put up with. Hopefully that will change once Wayland moves into primetime. You're just saying he's more productive because, as a zealot yourself, you worship him and Stallman. One is married to a fat, disgusting European pig. The other IS a fat pig who eats his own toejam. Both of them represent the core audience for Linux..

This makes me inclined to believe that you're the zealot not your coworker.

Ahh! You flipped it on him. So witty, so fresh, so clever. Seems your British education is finally paying off.

I keep seeing this repeated... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621529)

What is slow bloated and buggy about X?
I have exactly 70 megs of resident memory usage and 250 megs of virtual memory space allocated for my X server.

It is currently running 20-30 shells, two VMs (taking up ~3 gigs of RAM), an Atlas program, and AWeather, a NOAA based weather program.

And I'm currently typing this reply in one of those VMs with a cursor rate as fast as as if I was typing inside a native window.

And all of this is on a single core processor with 6 gigs of ram.

So excuse me if I call bullshit on your 'unproductive because he's running linux' analogy. While *A PARTICULAR* linux distro, desktop environment, etc may be much slower or less productive than a Mac, there are plenty of us with linux setups that are multiple times faster and more productive than we could get on a Mac, current version of Windows, or even on a 'default-setting' mainstream linux distro, such as Fedora/RHEL/CentOS, Debian/Ubuntu, or (Open)SuSE.

Making broad generalizations like that just shows you haven't taken the time to investigate Desktop optimizations that could make you more productive on linux, just like I haven't invested in discovering new Windows/Mac optimizations to compare against my linux setup.

That said, if you stop treating your mac like a hammer, maybe you'll find some projects that linux would act as a better screwdriver for :)

Re:WOW! (1, Troll)

Dreadrik (1651967) | about 7 months ago | (#46623941)

Linus Torvalds is much more productive than you. He uses Linux. You should definitely switch.

To be fair, Linus Torvalds uses a MacBook Air. Though he probably has linux on it.

Re:WOW! (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#46621499)

My Dell Dimension P90 is about 20 years old and looks like new. Must mean that a Pentium box running Windows 98 is shit tons better than your Macbook Pro. Oh hey, my TRS-1000 looks pretty new too...

Re:WOW! (3, Funny)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 7 months ago | (#46623133)

Above post proves that some persons are willing to pay a lot more for the same tools as those who use the best practices of resource management.

And that some people cannot make the distinction between effective workflows and good tools.

It is easy to be inefficient on a Linux box. Move that user to a Mac or Windows box, and a strange thing happens. He will be just as inefficient when measured by time. However he will be much more inefficient when measured by total cost of his output.

In conclusion, the easy way to increase the inefficiency in a workflow is to buy expensive computers for the most inefficient personnel. This stimulates the economy. The cost of this stimulation is borne by the companies that use this tactic and shows up as a decrease in competitive advantages. But it is all done for the greater glory of Apple and Microsoft so it is all good.

Re:WOW! (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 7 months ago | (#46620975)

Well, no. It does not.

Re:WOW! (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 7 months ago | (#46621707)

Not to side with the hoard of mac trolls in this thread . . . but Linux systems tend to be pretty pricy too. Also, the "double price" is not entirely honest. Computer models tend to get more expensive per hardware capability near the end of their life. That's far from Apple specific, and it's very easy to pick out the cheapest, newer pc model against an old mac line right before an update. Sure you can conjure up numbers that make it look double. But when you factor in computer support, making informed purchases (like buying after soon a model update, and buying cheaper RAM from a reputable 3rd party), and software (bloatware subsidizing some PCs vs hardware subsidizing software), Macs are not terribly far from PCs in terms of price vs specs. Same goes for vendor supplied Linux PCs. Quality just isn't cheap. And no, I'm not biased towards Apple; I'll just as happily use BSD, Linux, or even Windows 7.

Re:WOW! (1, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46620435)

"Oh, hey, I think the toy computers are fighting again..."

-Servers, Compute Clusters, Storage Systems, et al.

Re:WOW! (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 7 months ago | (#46620487)

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

You do realise that almost all of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux [top500.org]

Re:WOW! (2)

lfourrier (209630) | about 7 months ago | (#46620535)

as do billions of Android phones...

Re:WOW! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620751)

and millions of TV's

Linux won and no one noticed...

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620871)

Congrats on all your shitty media consumption devices!

The rest of us will do real work on real operating systems.

Re:WOW! (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 7 months ago | (#46621285)

Like those that run the world's best supercomputers?

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621901)

Running on a supercomputer is not a sign of a good general purpose OS; supercomputers are usually homogeneous sets of well-defined hardware, and typically have front ends which hide the internals from the outside-facing attack surface.

A good general purpose operating system survives arbitrary hardware connection and disconnection and arbitrary user activity. Linux can be configured to be a reasonable approximation of a good general purpose operating system, but there is no need to do that on supercomputers, where unneded drivers and subsystems are just resource drains.

You would not be happy with a supercomputer OS on your laptop, since it probably lacks any USB, audio, or graphical display support, and your laptop is unlikely to have infiniband or whatever hardware.

That Linux makes a good supercomputer OS is mostly because of its generality and openness, however the kernels in almost all of the relevant Top-500 are far from generic.

Re:WOW! (1)

Mark of the North (19760) | about 7 months ago | (#46621617)

And get paid to do it?

Unless you are doing desktop support (which doesn't pay) or developing applications that will run directly on the devices that sit in front of users (which can pay very well or not at all), you will likely be doing backroom work, where Linux dominates. Backroom work pays nicely and there's lots of it. True, one can do backroom work from a Mac easily enough, but a Linux desktop has its productivity advantages, like being able to spin up dozens of LXC containers in a way that mirrors the production environment, which is exactly the reason why my work desktop is a Linux box.

If your work is aimed at desktop support of Macs or developing applications for Apple products, a Mac makes sense, as does a Windows box for Windows work, but the amount of real work opportunities I'm seeing with Linux has grown a great deal in the last five years, like quadrupled. We're not talking about a tiny slice of the pie anymore. It's significant and growing fast.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46622699)

For desktops, Microsoft, secondarily Apple. Linux can be used as a desktop if need be, but for the most part, for ease of management in the enterprise, Windows is top dog.

For servers, it can be a toss-up. Likely a hybrid environment is best because some applications like Splunk seem to be happiest on Linux.

For appliances, dedicated devices, and other items, there is no contest -- Linux is the primary [1] solution. It may not be perfect, but it is the one that is the most popular, and there are many tools available to use.

[1]: QNX is a very good tool, but from what other /. posters say about the cost of a development kit and built tools, the cost to play in the Neutrino ball game can be quite steep.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46623635)

LMAO!

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620717)

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

You do realise that almost all of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux [top500.org]

You do realize that even if all of the top 500 supercomputers ran Linux, it would still only be a mere 500 computers doing real work, compared to millions of Macs?

Re:WOW! (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#46621523)

Let's see how much you get done on your Macs if we take away all of those Linux servers that aren't doing "real work"

Re:WOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621191)

Because it's faster, better, more reliable? Nope. Linux fails on all 3 counts. They use it because it's free. Ouch! Another smug asshole bites the dust.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621319)

Well, it faster, it better and it more reliable. Or would you save money from OS if you splashed billions on supercomputers?

Re:WOW! (0)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 7 months ago | (#46622239)

Hi troll, have a sandwich.

Linux *is* better, faster, and more reliable.

Re:WOW! (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 7 months ago | (#46620757)

and people who make silly youtube videos

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620785)

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

Not scientists surely. It's the gay arty-farty type who use Macbooks

Re:WOW! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620901)

Not true. There are plenty of completely heterosexual arty-farty-type people who use Macbooks too - they merely seem gay.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621461)

Not true. There are plenty of completely heterosexual arty-farty-type people who use Macbooks too - they merely seem gay.

Maybe that's just their dating schtick. They understand the height of the female ego and are betting that a woman will try to "convert" them.

Oblig car analogy (1, Insightful)

Ioldanach (88584) | about 7 months ago | (#46621307)

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

  • Apple: sportscar; moves you around quick and looks good while you do it. Useful for a lot of personal tasks.
  • Windows: suv; a bit bloated and gas guzzling but reliable for basic user-level grunt work.
  • Linux: truck; From tractor-trailer on down to pickup truck, great at heavy lifting but it has to be fairly stripped down (e.g., android) in order to do useful user-level work. Most people wouldn't use the heavy versions of it, but for those of us who need it, it is indispensable.

Re:Oblig car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621907)

*BSD - Diesel truck, for industrial work.

Re:WOW! (1)

MSG (12810) | about 7 months ago | (#46622673)

... all the while running Linux on their servers.

The Intel Broadwell CPU (3, Interesting)

Grindalf (1089511) | about 7 months ago | (#46620427)

The Intel Broadwell CPU has got a machine code pseudo random number generator in it's extended instruction set! Immense! Gimme Gimme Gimme ...

Re:The Intel Broadwell CPU (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 7 months ago | (#46620507)

The Intel Broadwell CPU has got a machine code pseudo random number generator in it's extended instruction set! Immense! Gimme Gimme Gimme ...

And what's more the pseudo random number generator is NSA approved [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The Intel Broadwell CPU (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | about 7 months ago | (#46620909)

Hot Dog! They'll be rewriting those UNIX fortune cookie messages with sinister uncanny replacements in no time ...

Re:The Intel Broadwell CPU (3, Informative)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 7 months ago | (#46621963)

The Intel Broadwell CPU has got a machine code pseudo random number generator in it's extended instruction set! Immense! Gimme Gimme Gimme ...

And what's more the pseudo random number generator is NSA approved [wikipedia.org] .

No. In designing it, I plotted a path around the obvious back doors in SP800-90 and FIPS140-2. I don't think the part of the NSA that likes weak RNGs likes that one. The obvious back doors being the Dual-EC-DRBG and FIPS140-2 section 4.9.2, which I call the FIPS entropy destroyer.

The reseeding 2 million times a second thing is an effective defense against a class of hypothetical attacks which wouldn't work anyway.

It is FIPS compliant, but we won't be claiming FIPS certification until it is actually FIPS certified.

Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46621863)

The current x86 instruction set is already so vast it past "extended" about 10 years ago and is way too complex for most humans to grok in its entirety. Its the C++ of assembly languages these days. I'm not sure adding ever more instructions is really the way forward. x86 was always CISC but even so , seems to me intel has deliberately taken the RISC how-to manual and never mind ignored it, they've set light to it with a blowtorch then pissed all over the ashes afterwards. Even their early decisions were dubious - have a register based cpu , need a maths co-pro , shall we make it register based? Nah , lets go for a stack based architecture just to make assembly coders lives 10x more difficult. Genius! Not.

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 7 months ago | (#46622051)

Adding instructions is another way to take advantage of the (up until recently) ever increasing density of integrated circuits.

The intel instruction set may not be ideal in many ways, but intel has done a pretty good job advancing the state of microprocessor design and execution for 40 years now, don't you think? I mean they've driven desktop processors all the way to their end game, all the way to the end of Moore's Law. And you act like they've hamstrung the computer industry or something.

Also your notion that slavishly adhering to some 30 year old RISC principles is somehow the only or best way to make processors is ill informed.

"Most humans cannot 'grok' the entire Intel instruction set" is patently false - anyone can understand it, it's well documented; but most people, most coders even, don't *need* to understand it and therefore spend their mental energy acquiring information that is more useful to them.

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46622201)

So you can remember and properly use the entire x86 instruction set? Really? Then I take my hat off to you. But in case you've got confused and think the latest chips just have the 386 set with a few extra bits and pieces you might like to check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... [wikipedia.org]

And I don't think anyone should slavishly adhere to RISC, but intels default position on any new functionality seems to be add yet another set of opcodes rather than letting smart compilers figure it out. These days its power efficiency that matters more than yet another fancy opcode subset than gets used in 1 in every 10K programs.

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 7 months ago | (#46622411)

It doesn't actually look that bad. I did a lot of Pentium 1(pre MMX) stuff many years ago, and I could remember and properly use a fair percentage of it. That is only perhaps twice as long. I would imagine a compiler designer would be comfortable with the majority of that, and then some (pipeline optimizations, etc).

But I do agree with you, RISC or near RISC is perhaps better. Especially now memory is cheaper. Cache memory never seems to get cheaper though, not the real fast Level 1 stuff anyway...

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 7 months ago | (#46622959)

Cache memory never seems to get cheaper though, not the real fast Level 1 stuff anyway...

The most important "price" for L1 cache is paid in latency. It won't become much cheaper unless transistors become arranged in 3D, and after that the game is mostly over.

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 7 months ago | (#46622125)

Apparently TechyImmigrant below may not be human....

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 7 months ago | (#46622979)

Apparently TechyImmigrant below may not be human....

After my dental work, I presume I'm a cyborg, but still built on a base human platform.

Re:Extended compared to which older CPU? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#46623699)

You are forgetting that the entire idea behind RISC was that since compilers use only a tiny fraction of a typical instruction set, getting rid of redundant instruction types and reducing the number of instructions also helped in simpler, and thereby faster CPU design. From there on, there were the 2 schools - the speed demons (super-pipelined) vs the brainiacs (super-scalar) CPUs that tried different approaches, but most smoked CISC designs.

Ever since the Pentium debuted, the x86 has been more RISC like in terms of everything except its instruction set, where it was locked. Unfortunately, by then, the x86 had a huge installed base of software that had an unstoppable momentum behind it. Which is why even the Cyrixes & Centaurs of the world sold far more CPUs than Alphas or PA-RISCs. In fact, this is the reason that every RISC platform is today virtually swimming w/ the fishes, except ARM.

Re:The Intel Broadwell CPU (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 7 months ago | (#46621903)

>The Intel Broadwell CPU has got a machine code pseudo random number generator in it's extended instruction set! Immense! Gimme Gimme Gimme ...

Actually, it's a hardware RNG feeding the instruction, and in Broadwell there are two instructions, RdRand and RdSeed. RdRand for an often (2 million times a second) reseeded SP800-90A compliant AES-CTR-DRBG. RdSeed for an XOR construction ENRNG built about the DRBG using the AES-CBC-MAC conditioner output for the full entropy seed.

I thought everyone knew that.

   

Antibufferbloat : maybe for home gateway (2)

advid.net (595837) | about 7 months ago | (#46620559)

The Antibufferbloat draw my attention...
Maybe it will be worth using at home for my custom fw/gateway.
at the end of page [kernelnewbies.org]

ZRAM (2)

disi (1465053) | about 7 months ago | (#46620651)

I use tmpfs a lot, but why would I use memory as swap space? Reading the Wikipedia article doesn't convince me, why not provide any swap space in the first place?

Re:ZRAM (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 7 months ago | (#46620859)

Compressing/decompressing the data in RAM is faster than writing/reading from disk. CPUs are getting much faster than disk. And flash/SSDs have a limited number of write cycles. It improves performance and preserves the life SSDs. What's not to like?

Re:ZRAM (1)

disi (1465053) | about 7 months ago | (#46621031)

I do not dislike the module, more variety is good. The compression does also make sense and might help, but I would rather have my kernel only swap when needed and this is when it runs out of memory.

Re:ZRAM (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46620955)

That's how they get to compressed RAM - they don't build a new RAM subsystem, they allocate it as swap and then use the swap system to get at it. Saves on code, doesn't require duplicated work.

I tried it on my wife's laptop, which at 2GB is apparently too anemic to open KDE on Fedora with 5 Facebook tabs open in Firefox while Thunderbird is also running (:shakes fist about 32MB Mac running Netscape Communicator).

Anyway, it seemed to make performance rather terrible, which was a bit surprising. That was last year, out of -staging, though.

Re:ZRAM (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 7 months ago | (#46621189)

I have a 16 GB laptop and I don't have any swap. I never run out of memory. free -m tells me that it's using about 4 GB for programs and data and almost 10 GB for file system buffers. I understand that I could get some more buffers if it compressed in RAM those pages that would have been swapped out, but is that really important? If you have little RAM you don't want to swap into it, if you have plenty you don't swap.

it can be more efficient for some (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 7 months ago | (#46621995)

Sure, it may not make sense for everyone, but I bet there are cases that will see significant gains.

For example, imagine you're running a server with too much data to fit in RAM uncompressed but a lot more (maybe all of it) will fit in RAM if you compress it. So by doing compressed swap, you spend a bit of CPU power (to do the compression/decompression) to avoid a lot of waiting on I/O.

Sure, if you put in a bunch more RAM you could fit it all, but that might require buying new hardware, or maybe you've already hit the limit of what's available and still want more performance.

Re:it can be more efficient for some (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 7 months ago | (#46622775)

This isn't a completely new feature. AIX has had this since at least version 7.1.

It is useful for virtualization. VMs that don't really do much (a tertiary DNS or a rarely used DB server for example) can still be kept in RAM, but the RAM they use minimized so other tasks/VMs have it available.

Of course the downside is if all the VMs decide to go for maximum activity at the same time. On AIX, this will peg the CPU, and cause swapping (especially if the compression ratio is set high.) Not sure what this will do on Linux, likely add significantly to CPU load.

Re:it can be more efficient for some (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 7 months ago | (#46623137)

Using ZFS arguments, most VM type servers have way too much CPU and not enough memory or IO. ZFS can do 2GB/s per core for compression. I assume a similar thing happens with this "zram" feature. Plenty of CPU and not enough IO. Compress it, lots of memory is full of zeros with all of that padding going on.

I assume that the major work types of computers involve little memory being actively use. I bet a lot of it is just allocated and has data filling it up, but not being used. Compress it.

Re:it can be more efficient for some (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 7 months ago | (#46623375)

In the AIX world, compression does come into handy. Probably the ideal place are applications like low-volume Splunk indexers that end up getting handed redundant data (syslog entries, performance counters), so even the in-RAM read/write disk cache can be compressed.

Then there are those Web servers that have something oddball internally, but have to remain. Someone wants an internal wiki which nobody maintains, so that one is ideal for turning compression to max and just forgetting about.

Of course, there are VMs that you don't want compression on. The instance that does compiler builds comes to mind. Similar with very heavy I/O tasks like high-volume RDMS machines.

Re:ZRAM (2)

robmv (855035) | about 7 months ago | (#46623555)

Android 4.4 KitKat is using ZRAM on low memory devices, apparently they managed to get good results out of it to use it on final production devices

0.99.14 (2)

tigersha (151319) | about 7 months ago | (#46620683)

I remember installing the 0.99.14 kernel in 1993. SLS Linux. My first distribution. So in more than 20 years we only went up 3 versions??!!

Re:0.99.14 (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 7 months ago | (#46620721)

Well, in 20 years Windows NT went from 3.x to 6.x, so I'd say it sounds about right...

Re:0.99.14 (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 7 months ago | (#46620755)

No. 3.14 minus 0.99.14 would be closer to 2.1, not 3.

Re:0.99.14 (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 7 months ago | (#46620765)

And Apple has gone from Mac OS 10 to Mac OS 10

Re:0.99.14 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46620979)

Mac OS was at version 7 at the time. So over the last 22 years both Linux and Mac OS have gone up 3 versions.

Re:0.99.14 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621917)

Bah. Windows went from 1.0 in 1985 to 98 in 1998. That's 97 versions in 14 years! :)

Re:0.99.14 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46620881)

You can count commits if it makes you feel better.

Maybe they'll get around to fixing race conditions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621007)

systemd targets can only do so much.

I must be confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621157)

I thought we were up to 3.4.something.

Now we're back to 3.14?

Re:I must be confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621211)

14 comes after 4. It's a version number, not a decimal fraction.

Tell that to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46621585)

ls! :)

Re:I must be confused (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | about 7 months ago | (#46621549)

Don't read it as a decimal number. Each point separates whole numbers. 3.14 is simply a way of writing Version "3", subversion "14". 3.4 is a way of saying Version "3", subversion "4". 2.40.9 would be version "2", subversion "40", sub-subversion "9". It would also be equivalent to write 02.40.09 - but that would just be tedious and a waste of space.

ZRAM doesnt provide a block device (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46621397)

It looks like it transparently compresses pages going to swap, it's not like you need a SEPARATE block device to be your 'zswap' device.

Tomorrow they will release (2)

suso (153703) | about 7 months ago | (#46621409)

Linux 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...

SCED_DEADLINE HURRAH!!! (2)

deviated_prevert (1146403) | about 7 months ago | (#46621793)

Out of the box rt YAHOO. Let the games begin...OR more to the point for those who could care less about gaming but record music, stream transcoded AV and do serious studio work LINUX will knock it out of the park! Provided ALSA, THE PULSE MONSTER, Rosegarden, Audacity, Ardour retool to use the rt headers correctly so the linux install does not have to have a hacked up security_limits.conf and a patched kernel. HALLELUJAH I say. Mind you one still might have to increase the frequency from stock 250 to 1000 for their install. Modern systems with higher bus speeds should handle this change but it might not sit to well on slower older hardware like a year 2000 P111 or older.

I have been running rt since the early days and have always felt like having to tweak a kernel just to obtain low latency was a road block for the future of Linux.

Antibufferbloat Latency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624261)

Does anyone know how they measure latency? I read one of the papers, some went above my head, but the gist that I got was this new algorithm can adjust to changing bandwidth, which is detected via "latency". I understand that a machine can measure its own internal queuing latency, but how are they measuring the queuing latency of the upstream?

Do they actively ping a remote device, like the first hop, or is this tracked per TCP session, which would mean it's stateful.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?