OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/24205/Linux_2_6_37_Released Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sun, 19 May 2013 19:51:55 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by maxsideburn http://www.osnews.com/thread?455992 http://www.osnews.com/thread?455992 just can't wait for the Galbraith latency patch in 2.6.38 ;) Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (maxsideburn) Comments Thanks Kernel Developers! http://www.osnews.com/thread?455993 http://www.osnews.com/thread?455993 I like the most things they have done to kernel, particularly removal of Big Kernel Lock, or IO throttling. But I like some day to see a power manager as good as what OSX has. Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmrezaie) Comments Android removed ??! http://www.osnews.com/thread?456011 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456011 Well, this one will be most talked about I guess: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dsmogor) Comments RE: Thanks Kernel Developers! http://www.osnews.com/thread?456014 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456014 OS X has piss poor power management in and of itself, it's the Apple drivers and tweaks that allow it to be efficient. You can do this in Linux too, but it takes more work and some understanding of how ACPI works. Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darknexus) Comments Big Kernel Lock Removal. http://www.osnews.com/thread?456016 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456016 I thought they had removed this a while ago. What actually happened is that they gradually lessened the impact of The Big Kernel lock, allowing more and more of the kernel to be run in parallel. The only think it controls in modern 2.6 kernels are a hand full of drivers and obscure file systems. They fully removed the Big Kernel lock and replaced it with mutexes. So these parts that were not able to be run in parallel, are still not able to run in parallel, but one obscure driver shouldn't block a different obscure driver anymore. For what that's worth.

Still a pretty cool benchmark for the kernel. Oh, I remember the taunts of those who criticised the linux 2.0 kernel for its SMP. Nice to lay those to rest. Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE: Android removed ??! http://www.osnews.com/thread?456022 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456022
Well, this one will be most talked about I guess: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html


Uh, why would it be talked about? That's not new to this release - it happened in 2.6.33, over a year ago now, and all conversation occurred back then...Edited 2011-01-05 20:31 UTC Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Delgarde) Comments 2.4 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456148 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456148 I'll stick with 2.4, much faster thanks. Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darrelljon) Comments Comment by turrini http://www.osnews.com/thread?456208 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456208 wrong replyEdited 2011-01-06 17:00 UTC Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (turrini) Comments RE[2]: Thanks Kernel Developers! http://www.osnews.com/thread?456209 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456209 OS X does not have to support as much software. And when you buy a windows laptop the laptop manufacturer installs it's "own" drivers to make it efficient.

So the Linux developers have a lot more work to do.

But if you are unhappy how much power your Linux-based system uses, I suggest running 'powertop'. It will help you with all of that.Edited 2011-01-06 17:02 UTC Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE: 2.4 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456211 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456211 I wonder what you use it for. Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE: Big Kernel Lock Removal. http://www.osnews.com/thread?456212 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456212 That combined with the recent scheduler changes in 2.6.38 and lots of changes to the kernel-threads, some tickless changes and ext4 scalability improvements and removal of barriers in the block subsystem should hopefully improve performance for a bit.Edited 2011-01-06 17:17 UTC Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[2]: Thanks Kernel Developers! http://www.osnews.com/thread?456298 http://www.osnews.com/thread?456298
OS X has piss poor power management in and of itself, it's the Apple drivers and tweaks that allow it to be efficient. You can do this in Linux too, but it takes more work and some understanding of how ACPI works.


Based on what evidence is it 'piss poor' or is this more 'speaking out of your ass' rather than using empirical data?

The efficiency in terms of power management has as much to do with the kernel as it has with the user land applications and how they're written. If an application is polling non-stop for a device to be inserted then it won't matter how efficient the kernel is given that an application in user space is constantly waking the CPU from its low power state. Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments