4.6 VRQ patch v4.6_0470_vrq2 is released with
- v4.6.3 based
- merge commits
- minor code change to remove an never-reached branch in __schedule()
4.6 VRQ test patch v4.6_0470_test3 is released with
- v4.6.3 based
- merge commits
- code clean up
Same tags are also available on my github repository
In the rest time frame of this release, I'll perform the sanity and latency tests for cfs, bfs, vrq and vrq-test, result will be post when they are done.
BR Alfred
Edit:
VRQ-test all-in-one patch is available at here.
I don't know how much work it is... but are you able to provide additional all-in-one patches, please? This would really ease the process of testing.
ReplyDeleteAnd: What patch would you recommend at first for me, when I am still glad with VRQ test1 on 4.6.3 (+BFQ +modded TuxOnIce)?
Thank you in advance and BR,
Manuel Krause
What I do is check out whole linux-gc repo from bitbucket, then switch branch to needed one say v4.6.3-vrq2, then apply patches + configure kernel, then build the kernel directly in that branch, then git reset & clean, rinse and repeat :)
DeleteIn the VRQ branch there is VRQ + BFQ + Graysky's GCC patch, last two are optional for build, so does not interfere if You don't need, if You need, just configure them.
Hope this helps and if this is all known and not needed for particular situation, then sorry for noise... If I'm doing smth wrong, please correct me.
br,
Eduardo
@Eduardo:
DeleteThank you for yor reply. I don't use the "fetch-all" approach at all. I also don't like the related git things. Usually I download the vanilla base kernel source from openSUSE as .rpm and after installing, apply _all_ the patches in question. Aside from the mess of work to download Alfred's commits one by one from within the browser, this allows a closer look on his work & changes.
@Alfred:
Thank you for the added all-in-one VRQ2 test3 patch link. This kernel is up and running well for 8h now. Mmmh, you've really switched to the 5ms setting. :-)
BR Manuel Krause
@Eduardo
DeleteGit is very helpful when you get used to it. Thanks for you sharing here.
@Manuel
After compare the performance between 5ms and 6ms, I can't see huge difference, so 5ms is default now.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI compiled test1 patch, with HZ 300 + BFQ and base config taken from Fedora, on my laptop the power consumption was rather high... 4.5.5 VRQ did not have this. Responsiveness was good, thanks.
I suppose I'll take standard VRQ patch and give it a go.
thanks, br
Eduardo
@Eduardo
DeletePlease test the 4.6 VRQ branch, there is unlikely the new code changes in -test branch cause power consumption regression, but if it happens, I'd try to address it.
BR Alfred
@Alfred
DeleteI recompiled test3 again, this time I used config from 4.5.5 VRQ and it seems that power consumption is back to normal levels!
So no worries, thanks for Your work and quick reply.
br,
Eduardo