Linux 3.14 Kernel Released 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."
PI KERNEL (Score:5, Funny)
Yay! We've finally reached that!
Re: (Score:1)
Yay! We've finally reached that!
And it's delicious.
Re:PI KERNEL (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14
Just in time!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Or wait until next year for 3/14/15. Or back in year 1592 for 3/14/1592. :P
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer "$(echo c3VkbyBybSAtcmYgLwo= | base64 --decode)" personally :)
Re: (Score:1)
and well rounded
Re: (Score:1)
it's more of a octagon than a circle...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be irrational.
Dammit. Something actually a bit witty and I'm all out of mod points.
At least I never wasted any of them modding up the repetitive "sharks with lasers" memes.
Re: (Score:2)
Very pithy!!!
Too bad Linus went directly from 2.6 to 3.0. Had he gone to 2.7, that would have been the version 'e' (as in INV ln 1 or 2.7182818284590452353602874713527......)
Release day (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything below a leading "--" is a sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So --i still decrements i? Can I get an Amen!!
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they did release it in month 3 '14
(Replied to wrong comment at first)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re:The Intel Broadwell CPU (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:2)
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 du
Re: (Score:2)
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 noti
Re: (Score:2)
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 pow
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Apparently TechyImmigrant below may not be human....
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Aren't all cyborgs?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
>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 (Score:3)
Maybe it will be worth using at home for my custom fw/gateway.
at the end of page [kernelnewbies.org]
ZRAM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather have my kernel only swap when needed and this is when it runs out of memory.
You really don't want your kernel swapping when it runs out of memory. That is too late and will kill performance. Instead, your kernel moves pages that are not used to swap so that it can be freed for other, more important things when the need arises. That is a much more efficient way to manage memory.
That said, the kernel provides tuning parameters that will give you what you want.
sysctl vm.swappiness=0
Re: (Score:2)
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 la
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 alr
Re: (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Well, in 20 years Windows NT went from 3.x to 6.x, so I'd say it sounds about right...
Re: (Score:2)
No. 3.14 minus 0.99.14 would be closer to 2.1, not 3.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can count commits if it makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at the other extreme, if linux used Firefox's numbering scheme, we'd be at about 143360.14.
Re: (Score:2)
ZRAM doesnt provide a block device (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
Linux 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...
Re: (Score:2)
Kernel versions are integer vectors. You may have noticed, after 3.8 and 3.9 we didn't have 4.0, but 3.10, which is "greater than" 3.1 despite the apparent decimal equality.
SCED_DEADLINE HURRAH!!! (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. It does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WOW! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1, Offtopic)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Did you try changing the thermal paste? (and maybe have some power management control to prevent it going above 2GHz..)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, and nope. Hadn't thought of either--thanks for the suggestions. I'll try limiting the CPU first.
Re:WOW! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm currently doing my daily emerge (update \in Gentoo) on a Powerbook, so obviously my testicles are larger.
I don't complain an old 14 incher is plenty even if it is non pae! Obviously your wallet is thicker than mine though. This little romance only cost 75 bucks. A roll in the hay with a good serviceable IBM CHIPPY powerbook from the same time frame in computing history is usually 3 to four times that much. With or without hdd jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
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 mac
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's slowed but not stalled. CPU benchmarks indicate a difference of about 1.5 to 3, the latter sue it seems to memory bandwidth and more if special instructions are involved. For laptops the difference is bigger since the much reduced power consu
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if (a) I'd not already posted in this thread and (b) I could decide between Funny and Insightful. :)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
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: (Score:2)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
I've lots (tens, maybe hundreds) of colleagues who buy Macs and put Linux on them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
-Servers, Compute Clusters, Storage Systems, et al.
Re:WOW! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and millions of TV's
Linux won and no one noticed...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Hi troll, have a sandwich.
Linux *is* better, faster, and more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not true. There are plenty of completely heterosexual arty-farty-type people who use Macbooks too - they merely seem gay.
Oblig car analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
*BSD - Diesel truck, for industrial work.
I agree as a simple and robust internet and file server nothing out there compares to BSD for multicasting. If BSD devs and hackers could help develope a decent and stable a/v studio recording/ server that could be pared down to just the essential setup then I would jump ship in an instant. I would love to be able to serve up realtime high bit rate pod casts with 24 48000 flac in ogg container sound and lower bit rate video at something like good old pal 480 p in on demand realtime webm multicast streams
Re: (Score:2)
... all the while running Linux on their servers.