What Will Be in Linux 2.7? 494
Realistic_Dragon writes "The first discussion has been sighted on the Linux kernel mailing list to put together a feature list of things that should go into Linux 2.7 - including hotplug CPU & Ram support, network transparent sound and improvements to Netfilter to bring it up to the the level of OpenBSD's Packet Filter. And all this before most of us have started to run 2.6.0-preX, or even a 2.6 series stable release happening. Perhaps if you have a (sensible) idea now would be a good time to voice it, otherwise you will have to wait for 2.9 to get it included."
DRM support (Score:2, Funny)
Re:DRM support (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DRM support (Score:2)
You mean Autorun, right?
Remove Request (Score:3, Funny)
Multiple-kernel support (Score:2, Interesting)
Two Kernel Monte (Score:5, Informative)
Already there.
Re:Two Kernel Monte (Score:2)
Already there.
How about reading the web page you link to?
As it says it only support 2.2.x + 2.3.x kernels, and only 1 cpu at that. I'd hardly describe that as "already there".
Alex
Re:Two Kernel Monte (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, it is a boot process (userspace apps terminate), it just uses the linux kernel as the bootloader rather than something like grub.
Re:Two Kernel Monte (Score:3, Informative)
What the poster wants (and what I want) is the ability to load a new kernel, transfer the existing kernel tables (process, resource, driver status, etc) over to the new kerne
Re:Multiple-kernel support (Score:2)
Besides, it is counter to the Linux ker
Re:Multiple-kernel support (Score:3, Informative)
Then you could boot your test kernel remotely, and if it failed, you could power-cycle and be back to your safe kernel.
Another way of acomplishing this would be to implement loadlin for Linux to load your test kernel. (loadlin was a DOS prog
Re:Multiple-kernel support (Score:2)
The problem is that it's unlikely you'd be able to do very much when this was going on anyways. Rebooting is probably not all that much worse a solution.
Still a nifty trick, though.
-Erwos
Re:Multiple-kernel support (Score:2)
Re:Multiple-kernel support (Score:2)
Google search [google.com]
Kernel Traffic [zork.net]
Erm..Userfriendly UI? (Score:2, Interesting)
My main gripe with Linux has been that it's a bitch to configure for things that should't be so hard. Trying to get powermanagment to work on my IBM took me months and never worked right.
Re:Erm..Userfriendly UI? (Score:5, Informative)
User friendly configuration has been done.
I'd settle for power management working right.
Re:Erm..Userfriendly UI? (Score:2)
Re:Erm..Userfriendly UI? (Score:2)
Yeah, the "Start" button could be Dust Puppy, and when an app coredumps, Crud Puppy will pop up and smear grease on the inside of your screen.
What Linux Needs (Score:5, Funny)
What I'd like to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:5, Informative)
linux doesn't only ship with a timeshare scheduler. it includes both the SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR schedulers, which provide close-to-real-time scheduling capabilities. most pro apps in the audio realm use one or both of these. they can both be used alongside the SCHED_OTHER ("timeshare") scheduler.
what would be more interesting would be CPU cycle reservation, which is already present in OS X, and would be very useful for any streaming media software.
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:3, Informative)
-Aaron
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please. No doubt having had a different focus and so many years of time advantage, there are key areas where Solaris still trumps Linux. For instance, multiprocessor scalability (although it seems they sacrificed performance on 1-2 cpu boxes to acheive this result for their 64+ cpu boxes).
However, don't ever claim that Sun's kernel is in general superior to Linux. In a lot of ways Sun's kernel is ancient and crappy compared to Linux. Take a look at Sun's IP stack versus Linux's, for instance. Or how about lvm+softraid? When will Solaris stop relying on Veritas? (and don't answer diskuite, please). Or how about good integrated netfilter-like code?
While we're on it, let's talk hardware. The price
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the word you're looking for is mature, and immature on the Linux side. Take Linux's VM implementation, which has been scrapped and rewritten from scratch multiple times within 2.4 alone. Meanwhile the Solaris VM has been fine tuned over the past decade. Solaris's time share scheduler has been O(1) for well over half a decade, whereas Linux is just now getting an O(1) time share scheduler.
"Take a look at Sun's IP stack versus Linux's, for instance."
Care to tell me how Linux is superior? You seem to be only assuming it is, and leaving the burden of proof upon me. Sorry, I put it back on you.
But just for review of some networking features: Solaris has offered stateful I/O multiplexing through the /dev/poll mechanism as well as asynchronous I/O for years. These features are only now being implemented in Linux with things like epoll(), which you'll need a 2.6 kernel and userland support in glibc to use. It will be at least a year before we can begin to expect the average Linux system to support stateful I/O multiplexing through epoll().
Or how about lvm+softraid? When will Solaris stop relying on Veritas? (and don't answer diskuite, please).
Don't answer Solstice Disk Suite? Perhaps you forget that the LVM was modeled after the Sun Volume Manager (which later became SDS) Perhaps you'd have an argument if you were championing FreeBSD's vinum, which was modeled after the Veritas Volume Manager, however you're trying to champion a technology which mimics the Solaris implementation yet saying to discount that very implementation. Pathetic...
"Or how about good integrated netfilter-like code?"
Sorry, people aren't going to be using their $20,000 systems as routers for their cable modems.
"While we're on it, let's talk hardware. The price /performance ratios on UltraSparcs make Xeons look like a super bargain, not to mention Athlons.
Please show me a system with better price/performance than the V440: http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml? cid=104994&parentId=48589 [sun.com]
Keep in mind that no one in their right mind is going to shell out $26,000 for a system without a warranty. The V440 comes with 3 years of parts and on-site labor.
I'd certainly like to see you configure an equivalent system (the 1.28GHz UltraSPARC IIIi is equivalent to a 1.8GHz Opteron) from a vendor that offers at least a year of parts and on-site labor.
"It's way past late for them to have closed up the Sparc shop and moved everything over to this cheaper commodity platform that can pump more mips or flops per dollar than Sun can. And how freaking long did it take them to adopt PCI?"
The earliest Sparc systems I know of supporting PCI were Ultra 5s, released in 1995, about the same time most PC systems were starting to feature PCI.
"Of course, now most of my Suns have 64/66 PCI busses, while my latest Intels are doing PCI-X..."
Unless you're talking about the Opteron, the scalability and throughput of x86 systems is severely limited by the interconnect used between CPUs. P4 Xeons essentially share the FSB between processors, greatly limiting the amount of bus bandwidth that can be simultaneously utilized by multiple processors. With the P4, keep in mind also that the P4 does not cache operations, only micro-ops in its trace cache, so whenever the trace cache becomes tainted (by, say, mispredicing a branch) the P4 must fall back on retrieving the original opcodes out of main memory, saturating the front side bus (this is why Intel has been aggressively stepping up the bus speed of the P4)
For use as a high performance server, Linux does not rival Solaris in
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:4, Informative)
I also don't believe you understand the usefullness of Sun (non linux)solutions. You keep on correlating the costs to acquisition. In the real world the hardware/software costs don't mean squat. Any large IT business knows that your biggest cost is employees, software, licensing, support and contractors.
For one, i can spend 32,000 on a 4 way 64 bit cpu machine with 8 gigs of memory, 500gb diskspace and have Hotswappable CPU's, a VASTLY supperior backplane, Vastly superior scalability in growth and a proven reliable architecture. You Can't buy ANY linux solution/Wintel solution that comes close to the Solaris/RS6000/HPUX based systems out there. As i've stated before there is only ONE vendor that offers a machine feature comparison to suns LOW END/MID RANGE v880's and it doesn't come close in comparison to power. For example the only linux enabled hot swappable cpu/backplane/intel solution is built on 4 700 mhz pentium 3 processors and costs 24,000 for the base system. My Quad 1.2ghz v880 out of the box doesn't require anything proprietary, but on the linux solution you have to run the vendors version of linux, the vendors version of the apps compiled and can only use the vendors approved addons. Sure sun is only one vendor, but solaris is solaris. There isn't a mix match of versions, releases or there isn't a version of solaris for my v880 that doesn't work on my e10k. I can grow with a common platform to support from 1 user to 65000+ users and even cluster to support from that point on.
You have to get your mindset away from free/cheap = better. You have to realize that in the business world the costs for platforms that are tried and true is expected and also minimal compared to the costs to keep it running.
I would rather run my 2 terrabyte financial application on a slower sun server because of the reliability, the proven architecture and HA features. You have to remember that in my case 5 minutes of downtime costs $137,000. Suddenly a $3,000 Veritas volume management solution and a $100,000 hardware platform not only is justifyable but almost even insufficient in itself if you break out the cost vs requirements ratio.
I can make my 3 Terrabyte Clarrion System, my Sun V880 Systems, my Sun 280/240r webservers and my solaris management workstations run for months at a time in pure harmony. The fact that NOTHING CHANGES ON A WHIM IS A GODSEND!! The stability, and slowness by which things change is the reason why businesses rely on such as the costs are far from just your hardware/os purchase price.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Informative)
> I can make changes in the running kernel (instead of rebooting).
What "changes" are you talking about here? Modules in linux can be loaded and unloaded without rebooting, and that most definitely is "making changes in a running kernel".
> I can set control variables for the kernel on future reboots (instead of recompiling the entire thing).
Ok, here's the thing that really irks me. Where do you people GET this idiocy from? Does SU
I, for one, ... (Score:2)
I hate my computer(s). One of them is fragmented beyond hell(beneath?), pretty impossible to repartition, and the other one is running WinXP with NTFS, oh, and I haven't got the WinXP install discs as it was already installed on the computer, COMPAQ...
I feel like buying a new harddisk... but I'd have to buy 2 then, one for stuff stolen from RIAA/MPAA and one for Linux...
BSP/IP support! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah, and add more SCO(tm) code - adding Evil(tm) to MS Windows(tm) sure didn't hurt the bottomline at MS(tm)!
Disclaimer: (tm), (r), and (c) wherever appropriate...
Note: BSP/IP is defensively patented by FlyByNite Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harkonnen Enterprises.
A Web Browser...Definitely (Score:5, Funny)
-Pete
What's the point of hot plug ram/cpu (Score:2)
I think that a mechanism to patch a running kernel would improve uptime more than the ability to replace processors.
Also, some sort of buffer overflow prevention would be cool.
Don't know if either of these is possible... I think solaris has some sort of buffer overflow protection.
If I prepare a specification for (Score:3, Funny)
Nessisary Rewrites: SCSI, TTY (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nessisary Rewrites: SCSI, TTY (Score:3, Funny)
or, to quote Alan Cox [iu.edu] (emphasis mine):
*rimshot* Thank you folks; Alan will be here all week! Remember to tip your waitress!
Duh (Score:3, Funny)
What Will Be in Linux 2.7?
Plenty of SCO's intellectual property, duh!
Not included, should be: (Score:2)
Pancakes
Sweaters (pullover)
Lug nuts (various sizes)
Adamantium
Hedgehogs
Wishbones
Brie (or any other cheeses, for that matter)
This is just a short list, but when are the developers going to get serious on these issues?
summary please! (Score:2)
Kernel Sanders (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kernel Sanders (Score:2)
Eh, i think that you could get some added performance. Like, if you changed your compiler optimization settings such that you compiled for -march=athlonxp instead of 386 or even 686. And if you took a bunch of stuff out, like (heh) module support and filesystem types you don't use and initrd if you're not using it... If y
Unified Installer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Unified Installer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unified Installer (Score:2)
I probably deserved offtopic in my parent post - oh well. Linux newbie, typing this using the Knoppix Live CD so I mean it when I say, Thanks for telling me about tar! I just booted the terminal and I'm skimming the man page on it seeing how close it is to
Cheers.
FreeBSD-style jails (Score:4, Insightful)
Virtual host providers can do it for free with FreeBSD, or with ~10% CPU load using User-Mode Linux.
Re:FreeBSD-style jails (Score:2)
Split out the drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
This would require setting up a decent build process for modules outside the kernel, but that's a good thing anyway. Have you tried to compile the nVidia drivers lately? It can be a pain if your kernel headers aren't quite right. If there were a decent external API and good support for building third party modules, this would also make it easier for manufacturers to supply independent drivers.
Ooh! (Score:2)
That and the BSD style jails. Those are cool too.
Re:Split out the drivers (Score:2)
How about split out the architectures instead? Why do I have to d/l a tarball containing MIPS, SPARC, x86-64, PPC, etc. when all I want is the i386 branch?
Since each architecture has its own branch in the tree anyway, what would prevent those from getting forked out?
Re:Split out the drivers (Score:2)
Re:Split out the drivers (Score:3, Informative)
there's absolutely no reason why eg sound drivers and network cards can't be maintained independently with their own build process
Actually there is a practical reason why they're maintained within the kernel sources and not externally. The reason is that it allows the kernel developers more freedom to change the kernel. They don't have to worry about breaking a lot of dependent drivers because if they make a change that would break drivers, they have all the driver sources and can (and do!) go update t
New perspective on things (Score:2)
Anyone else notice the "enlightened" comments here seem to be more aimed at matching Solaris this time around? Solaris (either purposly or not) may be put squarely in Linux's sights. Based on the track record of recent Linux developments, Sun should be worried. It's now or never to start coming up with a real business plan to address Linux. They can't consider it a "toy" for much longer and keep what little marketsha
But of course... it's obvious (Score:2)
Time to add a VM? (Score:2)
OK, we can add Java or Python to our systems, but this still leaves Linux-the-platform facing two big challenges:
1. Support apps for kernel functions have to be written in lowest-common-denominator C/C++, making, say, ALSA configuration difficult
2. The number of very different frameworks providing essential functions (desktops, config management, web server
Re:Time to add a VM? (Score:3, Funny)
1.
2.
3.
<insert cheap shot here> or perhaps you expect the Spanish Inquisition?
Slashdot Load Balancing (Score:2)
"reversible" config (Score:2)
Hardware detection (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently even fairly advanced users can get hung up trying to get hardware to work. Windows has a huge advantage in this area even though you usually need a cd of drivers.
Even better would be a way to build a kernel that detects and includes support f
Re:Hardware detection (Score:2)
And that should do it, once you restart X. If this doesn't work, feel free to email me, or just post again.
Kernel wishlist (Score:2)
Network-transparent sound? (Score:2)
Seems to me it could be done just fine in userspace -- why put it in the kernel?
Maybe some sort of framework for allowing access to all devices from the network? That sounds like something hard that someone might want someday....
Re:Network-transparent sound? (Score:2)
Re:Network-transparent sound? (Score:2)
Re:Network-transparent sound? (Score:2)
Articles? (Score:2)
First Patch! (Score:2)
Live repartitioning (Score:2)
Would go nicely with the hot swoppable HDD and memory.
Re:Live repartitioning (Score:2)
Use MAS for transparent network audio. (Score:2)
Re:Use MAS for transparent network audio. (Score:2)
Hey, I've got an idea - let's embed to the kernel also: OpenLDAP, PostgreSQL and ... what else? GNOME?
Complete shared memory emulation (Score:2)
Native Support for SATA Drives!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
PLEASE include native support for SATA!!
What should be in the new kernel? (Score:2)
One word...NANITES!!! [trikuare.cx]
Ultimate flexibility and scalability... (Score:2, Interesting)
Process Selectible Cache-Replacement Policy (Score:2)
better laptop support (Score:2)
* APM / ACPI (still very hit & miss, and many vendors don't seem to follow the standard making it harder)
* docking station support (sometimes works, sometimes it freezes hard)
* hot swapping mice & keyboards (maybe 2.6 will make this better?)
* Function (FN) keys don't work (you know, the vendor function keys that get you the keypad; this may be an X
Device management (Score:2)
A oft-requested but oft-ignored request. (Score:4, Interesting)
Certain changes to /dev/input & console (Score:3, Informative)
When useing multiple USB keyboards all keyboards can be accessed through /dev/input/keyboard, and input from all keyboards appears on the console. (unless you don't insmod kbdev.o, and instead use /dev/input/eventx, which disables the console unless you also have a PS/2 keyboard, as well as useing a decidedly non-console like api)
If instead there were /dev/input/keyboards optionally linked to the console, and /dev/input/keyboard0..n (like it is with USB mice), we could use multiple video cards and an appropriately modified X to build multi-seat workstations, POS terminals, etc without needing Xterminals.
PCI VGA ~$50 vs ~$500 /XTerminal
A few things we really do need (IMHO) (Score:3, Insightful)
Safe Video (Score:3, Informative)
I'd really like to have an interface to the video system that is both fast and safe. At the moment, it's one or the other. Either I use straight X11 or I let the program bang on the hardware directly via DRI, SVGALib or the like.
I'd like to see video drivers in the kernel. Not necessarily full-featured OpenGL drivers, but something that:
Of these, #4 may not be possible to do safely, or may only be possible for some cards. If so, it would still be a win because a lot of applications will do fine with only the basic functionality and over time, as the bleeding-edge stuff becomes mundane, it will slowly trickle into the #3 category.
Re:The better question... (Score:3, Funny)
Uhh, you mean like any SCO code?
Re:The better question... (Score:2)
Re:The better question... (Score:2)
What WON'T be in Linux 2.7?
Autorun. Can't let any DRM measures creep in, can we?
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:5, Informative)
CPU hotplug support is not designed for removing the processor from your single-CPU x86 box.
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait to see the kiddies show off that feature! "The new kernel has CPU hotplug support, here, watch... oh CRAP."
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:2)
Hope so, otherwise, what would run the kernel while swapping ?
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:5, Funny)
And don't forget to lick all the Cheetos orange dust off your fingers before you start.
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:2)
Re:Hotplug CPU and RAM support? (Score:2)
Re:My wish list (Score:2)
Re:My wish list (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Idea (Score:2)
Throw in Apache, Postgresql and Tuxracer also!
Re:Good 64 bit support (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good 64 bit support (Score:3, Informative)
How did this get modded up?
Re:Don't have kernel needs but OS needs (Score:2)
Re:Don't have kernel needs but OS needs (Score:2)
For example, USB is kernel-supported in the current stable kernels, but support sucks at the OS-level. When will I be able to even hotplug a mouse or digital camera?
Although it's possible that drivers don't exist for your particular mouse or camera, USB hotplugging works just dandy in 2.4.x kernels, and with the tools available (hotplug). It's actually quite a bit better than Windows' support, in my experience. For one thing it doesn't tend to get confused by the fact that my devices are sometimes plug
Re:FreeBSD-style jails (Score:2)
Re:Hotplug CPU & RAM support (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're compiling a large program, your motherboard and OS support hot-swap, and you add more RAM, then yes, the next GCC process to execute will see the extra RAM.
Removing RAM, on the other hand, would probably need a hardware switch on the motherboard that swaps everything in that bank to disk.
Re:What I would _not_ like to see in 2.7 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SCO Personality Module (Score:2)
This would be sooooo easy to do, too...