From: Gordon R. <drg...@gm...> - 2007-10-14 17:02:12
|
I was about to update my host kernels from the somewhat dated versions I am using. However, blaisorblade's host patches only seem to go to 2.6.20-v9-pre9. From what I can tell, the current stable kernel is 2.6.23. I did try to patch from the 2.6.20 version I found, but a few of the hunks failed. As there are only a few hunks failing, I can probably apply them manually if needed. Have the skas patches relocated to somewhere else, or has /proc/mm now been integrated into the kernel? Or it is better just to stick to kernel 2.6.20 for the host? I am sure I must be missing something obvious, as I cannot find anyone else talking about this in the user mail archive... Sorry if I am just being stupid... Gordon. |
From: Jay S. <jay...@gm...> - 2007-10-14 17:05:56
|
Hi Gordon, While this answer may not be what you're looking for, here goes: I had that issue a few days ago, so I simply went for the 2.6.20 kernel anyway, and patched that with the latest one. For me, it was a safer bet. I did, however, use the 2.6.23 kernel for UML Guests. Jay |
From: Jay S. <jay...@gm...> - 2007-10-14 18:00:31
|
Hey, > Thanks for the reply. No Problem. Please remember to reply to the list address, though. > Considering a few of my host kernels are 2.6.9, even going to 2.6.20 > would be a big step up! > Good to know that I wasn't going mad about being unable to find a .23 > skas patch! You certainly weren't alone! > I will see what happens over the next few days, and then probably > follow your lead and just use .20. You might be interested to hear > that I did read online somewhere that the .20 patch works fine on the > .21 kernel. That is interesting. While that may be the case, I personally would rather have peice of mind that my kernel will work as it should, not worring that at somepoint down the like, an issue will arise. But that could just be me. Jay |
From: Antoine M. <an...@na...> - 2007-10-14 22:59:51
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Jay Shah wrote: > Hey, > >> Thanks for the reply. > No Problem. Please remember to reply to the list address, though. > >> Considering a few of my host kernels are 2.6.9, even going to 2.6.20 >> would be a big step up! >> Good to know that I wasn't going mad about being unable to find a .23 >> skas patch! > You certainly weren't alone! > >> I will see what happens over the next few days, and then probably >> follow your lead and just use .20. You might be interested to hear >> that I did read online somewhere that the .20 patch works fine on the >> .21 kernel. > That is interesting. While that may be the case, I personally would > rather have peice of mind that my kernel will work as it should, not > worring that at somepoint down the like, an issue will arise. But that > could just be me. It's very rough around the edges but works for me(tm): http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/skas-2.6.23.patch.bz2 (can't enabled visible process cmdlines - some struct has changed) FYI on amd64 you still get some enhancements of skas3 but you can't use /proc/mm so you have to add 'noprocmm' to the cmdline, ie: ./vmlinux ubda=./root_fs skas3 noprocmm Antoine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHEp9aGK2zHPGK1rsRCmpMAJ9wBD09wk+ygjMoq1OL9vyJVyzNIQCeKVjr HKEcbVSeo3WnV6kGNs5V7As= =DEqG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2007-10-21 12:18:47
|
On 20 Oct 2007, ni...@es... said: > I'm afraid that on x86-32 I get an extremely efficient coredump from all > UML guests with this patch installed :/ however, I haven't tried > building a skasless 2.6.23 host kernel yet: maybe I get an extremely > efficient coredump there, too. It works with `noprocmm'; thus, a trivial forward-porting of the skas patch is broken in 2.6.23. SKAS0 is tolerable (and far better than tt mode!) but it spams my process accounting logs and is significantly slower than SKAS3 :/ -- `Some people don't think performance issues are "real bugs", and I think such people shouldn't be allowed to program.' --- Linus Torvalds |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2007-10-20 18:42:25
|
On 14 Oct 2007, Antoine Martin verbalised: > It's very rough around the edges but works for me(tm): > http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/skas-2.6.23.patch.bz2 > (can't enabled visible process cmdlines - some struct has changed) I'm afraid that on x86-32 I get an extremely efficient coredump from all UML guests with this patch installed :/ however, I haven't tried building a skasless 2.6.23 host kernel yet: maybe I get an extremely efficient coredump there, too. (2.6.22.x hosts work fine; 2.6.23.x guests work fine.) -- `Some people don't think performance issues are "real bugs", and I think such people shouldn't be allowed to program.' --- Linus Torvalds |
From: Antoine M. <an...@na...> - 2007-10-21 14:56:30
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Nix wrote: > On 20 Oct 2007, ni...@es... said: >> I'm afraid that on x86-32 I get an extremely efficient coredump from all >> UML guests with this patch installed :/ however, I haven't tried >> building a skasless 2.6.23 host kernel yet: maybe I get an extremely >> efficient coredump there, too. > > It works with `noprocmm'; thus, a trivial forward-porting of the skas > patch is broken in 2.6.23. > > SKAS0 is tolerable (and far better than tt mode!) but it spams my > process accounting logs and is significantly slower than SKAS3 :/ > AFAIK guests on 64-bit hosts have never worked in full skas3 mode, only with noprocmm. Antoine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHG2iMGK2zHPGK1rsRCvIwAJ44PREmpmDF/8v/jYRG+c/Aut3b3wCdGSBM 9q84rrW4I+BebbvRcXwheno= =BMw0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2007-10-21 16:03:28
|
On 21 Oct 2007, Antoine Martin verbalised: > Nix wrote: >> It works with `noprocmm'; thus, a trivial forward-porting of the skas >> patch is broken in 2.6.23. >> >> SKAS0 is tolerable (and far better than tt mode!) but it spams my >> process accounting logs and is significantly slower than SKAS3 :/ >> > AFAIK guests on 64-bit hosts have never worked in full skas3 mode, only > with noprocmm. I'm on a 32-bit host, though. No 64-bit anything visible anywhere. -- `Some people don't think performance issues are "real bugs", and I think such people shouldn't be allowed to program.' --- Linus Torvalds |