text:
How to Reupholster a Gross Couch
First, how gross is the couch in question? Has it been sitting outside, getting rained on and moldy? Have the filling/cushions rotted out or disintegrated? If we're talking about a couch that it is gross because it is moldy and rotten, or because Heaven forbid it has bedbugs, I'm going to say throw it out. Sorry. Some things are not salvageable. Remember the episode of Portlandia when Daniel and Meg go dumpster diving? I'm all for upcycling, but there's a limit, and that limit is any food that is unsanitary and couches that are literally rotten. K?
Now, if your couch is merely gross because the upsholstery fabric is ugly or dirty, then by all means take a stab at reupholstering it. First of all, it could be worth it to take your couch to a professional upholsterer. If that's out of your price range, then follow these tips, many of which I got from Amy of While Wearing Heels and All Things Thrifty.
1. Start by taking photos of the couch with its gross upholstery on it. You'll need them later. Take note of all of the details of the couch. Which parts of the upholstery are sewn? Which parts are stapled? Document the way the the couch is constructed well so that you can recreate it. The upholstery on the cushions will most probably be sewn. Do you have a sewing machine? Do you know how to make patterns? The most challenging piece will be recreating the cushion covers, as it will require sewing.
2. Next, slowly and carefully, remove the upholstery from the couch. OK, this is more easily said than done. Gently pry off the upholstery from the back and bottom of the couch. Try not to tear the fabric, as it helps to have it as a guide for cutting the size and shape of your new upholstery fabric. Save every single part of the couch that you remove from it.
3. Get out your vacuum cleaner and clean the couch. There will be treasures in there like food, dust, maybe money, and hopefully not bugs. Avoid tearing or otherwise damaging the filling while removing the old upholstery fabric and while cleaning.
4. The next step is cutting the fabric. You'll need to trace around the pieces that you removed. DO NOT cut the pieces exactly the size as the ones that you removed. YOU MUST cut them bigger. Now please do not say that I didn't warn you.
5. You are going to staple the fabric onto the frame of the couch. Use an electric staple gun. Again, don't say I didn't warn you.
6. It would be dishonest to say that I actually know how to sew couch cushions. However, they covered it in detail on Design Sponge.
Have you successfully reupholstered a couch? Do you want to share your tips with others? Please comment.
Chaya Kurtz writes for Networx.com about everything from Portland plumbers to remodeling.
Looking for a Pro? Call us(866) 441-6648


text:
Apartments in Southwest Fort Worth
Nothing says happiness, excitement, joy and freedom like living in Southwest Fort Worth apartments for rent in Fort Worth! Each day is a breath of fresh air and adventure for local residents to enjoy and to be living proof that apartment living here is like no other! Hi, I'm Trey, your Official Fort Worth apartment living guide at ApartmentHomeLiving.com and I'm looking forward to helping you find top-notch Southwest Fort Worth apartments. As your Fort Worth apartment Search expert I want to make your apartment shopping experience stress-free and as easy as can be by showing you the best apartment listings near Southwest Fort Worth in Fort Worth, TX and providing you with accurate info on each one, updated every single day.
There is no doubt about it, apartment living is the "bee's knees"! You never have to deal with ever-rising property taxes or the ridiculous headaches of landscaping and taking care of a lawn. In most communities there is a pool that you aren't responsible for keeping clean and a rockin' fitness center. It's a known fact that the apartment lifestyle is awesome to begin with, but living in apartments in and around Southwest Fort Worth or one of the other great areas of Fort Worth is a recipe for the best "Life Brownies" you could ever taste.
Adventure awaits you all over the city, but if your idea of fun is kicking back at your place with a with a bottle of wine and your favorite movie, that's cool too. The Southwest Fort Worth apartment lifestyle grants you all the nearby necessities to make this "loungy" life possible and as comfortable as can be. From spacious floor plans and patios to on-site laundry facilities convenient parking, Fort Worth rentals have everything you need to live with ease and keep a smile on your face. Easily use the tools here at ApartmentHomeLiving.com to filter your apartment search by price, floorplan, bedroom count, amenities and more to find your perfect fit.
Renting the perfect Southwest Fort Worth apartment offers you the things necessary for an unrivaled life of freedom and fun...but what else? I'll tell you what else! You can make your place your own! Although you may be renting, an apartment gives you a blank canvas to express yourself to all your guests. Whether it's bold colors or fancy furnishings and decor, you have the option of making your place look anyway possible. Your apartment can easily become a reflection of you all at the simple cost of a little of the tons of extra time and money you'll save by renting.
And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg on how awesome your life can be in Southwest Fort Worth apartments. Finding your fun new place is easy, so hop to it by taking a look at the selection of Fort Worth apartment listings in the Southwest Fort Worth area on ApartmentHomeLiving.com and discover just how amazing apartment living can truly be.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brandon Turbeville
Sleuth Journal
Fresh on the heels of the fallout from revelations regarding former BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile and his unbelievably sickening and innumerable instances of child molestation as well as the "look the other way" approach taken by the BBC…
More and more questions are now emerging in regards to the connection between Savile and British Royalty, most notably, Prince Charles.
At least, more questions should be emerging…
Unfortunately, however, the British mainstream media is deeming Prince Charles and the rest of his ilk in positions of power and perceived genetic royalty as if they are beyond reproach. This approach is typical and to be expected, yet it is also highly ironic considering the fact that such is the same position the mainstream media took with the allegations against Jimmy Savile for so many years.
According to biographer Catherine Mayer, Prince Charles 'trusted Jimmy Savile on everything from marriage guidance to checking speeches.'
As a result of the Savile affair, mainstream outlets, particularly the BBC, now have a lot of egg on their faces in the areas of credibility and respect.
In short, any connections placing Prince Charles in an uncompromising position regarding his connections with Savile or his potential for sharing a penchant for unnatural relationships with children is being completely ignored if not officially covered up.
Although Prince Charles' friendship with Jimmy Savile, allegedly begun when the two met in the 1970s during the course of working with children's wheelchair sports charities, is now well-known, the extent to which the Prince and the Pedophile were connected appears to go much deeper than the mainstream media reports let on.
Of course, the two having come in contact at a "charity" event for the disabled is not too far-fetched, even if it is being reported by corporate outlets. After all, using children's "charities" as a hunting ground and a cover for his true motives was a notorious method used by Savile who actually lived in children's homes and hospitals so as to be closer to his victims. This method is by no means specific to Savile, however, as many other sexual predators and pedophiles know exactly what areas of society to be involved in and what careers to pursue in order to gain access to their victims. Jerry Sandusky stands as a perfect example.
Clarence House, Prince Charles' spokesman, declined comment on much of the relationship between Savile and Charles, only claiming that the relationship was mostly a result of their "shared interest in supporting disability charities."
Supporting charities, indeed.
Of course, Savile was doing much more than "supporting disability charities." That is, unless one places serial child rape in a much different category than the average person might. Indeed, one would not be judged out of place to question whether or not untold numbers of sexually assaulted children thoroughly cancels out any financial "support" that may have been given in the past. Apparently, in the view of British royalty, it does not.
In fact, child molester Savile has enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for the past 40 years.
For instance, in the late 1980s, Savile was said to have acted as a type of marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, visiting their residence several times. At these visits, Dickie Arbiter, who took care of media relations for the Prince and Princess between 1988 and 2000 stated that, at these visits, Savile's behavior was uncouth to say the very least.
Arbiter stated:
He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves. If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James's Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work.
Not only that, but Savile was brought in to the private marital affairs of the Royals once again in order to help the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, in matters which were not disclosed to the public. Savile later claimed he was brought in to help "Fergie" keep her profile down.
Obviously, the relationship forged between Charles and Savile went far beyond two men who merely performed charity work for the same organizations. This can be evidenced by the fact that, in 1990, Charles even consulted Savile for advice on the appointment of a senior aide for himself and Princess Diana.
The relationship between Charles and Savile, particularly Savile's access to the Royal Family's affairs and the respect which was afforded Savile in this regard, has confused many onlookers. After all, Savile was nothing more than a BBC presenter and disc jockey who was well past his prime. Not to mention the fact that Savile was well known as an uncontrollable freak, although many were under the impression that Savile's television persona was merely part of his schtick.
Yet the clues to the Prince's friendship with the Pedophile might have more to do with similar interests in entertainment than a mere happenstance relationship. Although the evidence which connects Prince Charles to pedophilia is nowhere near as documented as that of Jimmy Savile, a trail of information certainly seems to be leading in that direction.
At this point, it should be mentioned that, although the official line is that Savile and Charles met in the 1970s as part of the coincidence of mutual charity work, Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family "for a million years." In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten, a known pedophile and sexual pervert. In addition to Mountbatten, however, Greg Hallett, in his book Hitler Was A British Agent, also names Prince Philip as a pedophile. In reference to how he became introduced and ingratiated with the Royal family, Savile stated,
Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.
So, already, we have Savile, a notorious pedophile linked to other individuals of the Royal Family named as pedophiles as well. Prince Philip, of course, is Prince Charles' father. Lord Mountbatten is largely considered Charles' mentor.
Savile was indeed close to British Royals as well as other elites for many years. It seems his qualification for such high connections were mainly due to his ability to obtain children for the twisted appetites of those considered beyond reproach for the mainstream media and, unfortunately, the general public.
Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, "The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover."
Savile's ridiculous television show (created for the sole purpose of enhancing his access to children) was thus appropriately named, Jim'll Fix It. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public were completely unaware as to what he was fixing and who he was fixing it for.
Essentially, it is clear that Jimmy Savile was a procurer of children not only for himself but also for wealthy pedophiles all across the world, particularly in Britain. Even Savile's own nephew has recently gone public with information tying Savile to a network of pedophiles and sick sexual parties where children were repeatedly raped. Guy Marsden, Savile's nephew, also stated that the parties were attended by household names in show business.
However, as is being widely reported in the news, Savile's escapades of pedophilia were by no means limited to parties with the elite of entertainment. Many of his attacks on children took place in the halls of the hospitals and charities he helped fund and operate, even residing in his own personal room at two of these institutions. At this point, it is worth noting that Savile and Prince Charles are open "supporters" of the same charities.
Apparently, Prince Charles and the Pedophile did have some similar tastes, some of which were even reported by the mainstream media. In 1999, after the Prince accepted Savile's invitation to a private meal at Savile's home in Glencoe, Scotland, Savile had arranged for three women to parade around dressed in pinafores, a type of dress without sleeves and an open back that is often worn over other dresses. Interestingly enough, pinafores were often worn by children.After the dinner, Charles wrote Savile a Christmas Card with a note that read, "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland."
Of course, the mainstream is certain that Charles is referring to the local women brought in for the Royal entertainment. However, unless the hired help made an exceptional impression upon the mind of Charles, one must wonder whether or not these particular ladies are the "ladies" to which Charles is referring in his Christmas note. After all, Savile's Scottish cottage was also the scene of much child abuse as well.
Later, Charles sent Savile a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday along with another note that cryptically read, "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that." Fortunately, many are now aware of what Jimmy has done for his country. Clearly, it would be best if they are given the full story along with it.
This is not likely to happen, however, as global pedophile rings are generally made up of some of the most elite individuals the world over. This is particularly relevant when it comes to any questions regarding the behavior of the Royal Prince. At any moment when there is a chance that information might be leaked that would be damaging to the reputation of genetic royalty, the documents are sealed, the whistleblowers are dealt with, and the controversy covered up.Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of "dark forces" and members of an "organization" that were monitoring her shortly before her death.For instance, when it appeared that the so-called Black Spider Memos, a series of letters written by Charles to government ministers, would damage the perception of Charles' impartiality if he were to become king, then memos were immediately blocked by the British government. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see the contents of the letters, since, in reality, the impartiality of the king is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of British society and government.What is particularly interesting is that the letters are being blocked from release now, as the biggest pedophilia scandal in British history is unfolding – specifically, at a time when one of the main focal points of the scandal, Jimmy Savile, was a close friend of the Prince. Even more so, it comes at a time when British government officials are also being implicated in pedophilia networks.
For those who may still be under the impression that pedophilia is a crime beyond the capabilities of British politicians, take a look at thispartial compilation of British politicians convicted of pedophilia in recent years.But, while the connections between Prince Charles and the Pedophile Jimmy Savile are themselves enough to make one wonder, the fact is that Savile is not the only relationship with a potential pedophile that Charles has maintained.
As reported by the Digital Journal, the Right Reverend Peter Ball is the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested for offenses against children. Ball was arrested on eight suspected cases of abuse against boys and young men ranging from ages 12 to 20 during the 1980s to 1990s. Ball, who was the former Bishop of Gloucester, resigned in 1993 after he was served with a police caution for "committing an act of gross indecency against a teenager."
Upon his resignation, Ball retired to Manor Lodge, "a wisteria-clad property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall." Manor Lodge is a property of the Prince's Duchy of Cornwall.In reference to his new living arrangements, Ball stated, "He (Prince Charles) has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person."Considering the connections and personal friendships maintained by Prince Charles, one must question whether or not Charles himself has had some experience in the underworld of pedophilia. At the very least, the Prince is the absolute worst judge of character who ever lived.
What is also very interesting regarding the people named in these child sex scandals and the scope of the scandals themselves, is that the individuals who have been trying their best to bring this information to light have been ignored and derided for years on end. This has been the case whether the individuals were whistleblowers, researchers, or even victims themselves.
For instance, while much of mainstream Britain has had quite a time laughing at David Icke, suddenly his claims do not seem so fantastic and funny after all. Indeed, it was Icke who mentioned the global cabal of pedophiles and even many of the participants in them by name many years ago. While his voice was scarcely heard above the laughter at the time, he is, at the very least, on the record as having exposed these networks early on.As for Icke's remarks regarding the scandal today, he had this to say on November 7, 2012.
This guy, William Hague, the foreign Secretary, needs to be questioned on why that Welsh inquiry into the massive pedophilia in Welsh children's homes was given the brief that it did and therefore stopped these kids from talking about what happened to them. And this is the big thing. If the police investigation does not knock on the door of Buckingham Palace over this whole Savile [case] and the wider implications that have followed then it's a cover up. Because the British Royal family are fundamentally involved in this right to the top. Right up to the people like Prince Philip and all these other people . . . . . This man [Savile] was an aging sleazy disc jockey, right? And he had complete access to the British Royal family AND they used him as an official go-between [with] Prince Charles and Princess Diana when they were falling out in their marriage. And now it's come out this week that he was advising Prince Charles on aids to employ. Why is this man so close or was so close to the British Royal Family? The answer to that will bring the British Royal family down.
Considering Icke's accuracy in terms of information on this particular issue, perhaps it would be wise if those who heard him speak years ago might take him a little more serious the second time around.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
READ MORE ROYAL SCANDALS AT: 21st Century Wire Royal Files


text:
If you watched the Lindsay Lohan court proceedings this morning you understand this - why Mark Heller, her lawyer now, might be your, our new favourite person.
Yes. Because of the (maybe fake?) Louis Vuitton briefcase.
Yes. Because of the time he tried to bro-down with the judge like they were homies in New York before she told him "Flattery won't get you anywhere in this court".
Yes. Because his bumbling and fumbling was even too embarrassing for Lindsay Lohan who, at one point, muttered "stop" under her breath when he wouldn't.
Yes. Because the judge was annoyed and yelled at one of his random buddies who just came along for the ride, sitting behind him nodding for no reason.
Yes. Because he looks like he earned his degree from a send-away kit.
Yes. Because afterwards in a post-hearing press conference, ON HIS OWN, he essentially told assembled media that he looked forward to working with them in their great city.
Someone emailed me earlier and asked, hilariously, if this dude was Dina Lohan's new boyfriend. You know...it's possible.


text:
This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, I'm Ira Flatow. We all know the phrase a dog is a man's best friend. But how did they become such loyal companions? Scientists agree that dogs descended from wolves, eventually evolving into the first domesticated animals, but that's where the consensus ends.
Researchers have been using archaeological records and genetic studies to tease out clues about how dogs and humans came to live together, but they seem to tell different stories of how it happened.
Did dogs become domesticated 30,000 years ago, or was it a lot more recent? Did humans adopt wolf puppies into their lives, or was it the other way around? Did wolves simply become more tolerant of us? That's what we'll be talking about this hour. Our number 1-800-989-8255. You can also tweet us @scifri.
Mark Derr is author of the book "How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends." He joins us from Miami. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.
MARK DERR: Thank you.
FLATOW: Greger Larson is an evolutionary biologist and research scientist at Durham University in England. He joins us here. Welcome to the program.
GREGER LARSON: Good afternoon.
FLATOW: Let me ask you, first, to talk about dogs and how dogs - what is the controversy here, Mark? Are wolves ancestors to dogs, or are they more closely related?
DERR: I think it's generally agreed at this point in time that the dog is descended from the wolf and no other canid. The question is where and how that occurred, as you said. And that's open to debate. The debate was joined again this week with the publication of a new paper in Nature suggesting that when wolves began to be able to digest carbohydrates, and they - from feeding in the garbage dumps of just pre-agricultural humans, that that transition allowed them to become dogs.
FLATOW: From feeding in garbage dumps?
DERR: From feeding in garbage dumps. That's a popular - one popular theory. It's not one I subscribe to.
FLATOW: Well, what do you subscribe to?
DERR: Well, I like to be a little heretical and say that I think that early humans and wolves got together from the time they first met on the trail of the big game they were hunting, and they like each other in many ways, and so from the beginning of that union, dogs - wolves and humans were together. From some population of wolves, we're not quite sure which, we had some transformations that occurred that gave us a more doglike animal, and the rest is history.
FLATOW: Greger Larson, why would wolves have been drawn to humans in the first place or vice versa? Where are the benefits for both parties here?
LARSON: Well, I think the first question is really, I think you're absolutely right, why the benefits because they're both omnivores and they're both competing for the same game. So they would be highly suspicious of one another, and it would be active competition. In fact, we know that once dogs are domesticated, wolves get eradicated very quickly. In fact, it's a bit of a surprise that there's still wolf populations left because it's such a contentious relationship between humans and wolves, generally speaking.
But - and I tend to agree. I think that wolves and humans, despite this kind of negativity towards one another, there was a similar purpose. There was a shared desire to seek out similar game, and as a result of that I think that we're not quite sure still when it was, but it was certainly the first domesticated animal and that it was almost certainly something to do with hunting and that there was this relationship that built up between human camps on one side and sort of tame wolves on the other side that were able to tolerate the presence of humans and vice versa.
And they kind of partnered up and started hunting together.
FLATOW: Mark, are archaeological records and genetic studies producing conflicting results about when dogs were domesticated? Where is that debate?
DERR: That debate's been raging since about 1997, when Bob Wain(ph) and Carl Vila(ph) published an article suggesting that the dog was derived from the wolf about 135,000 years ago, which is still a date that's out there. It's pretty extreme, but it's still out there. And at that time, of course, there was no archaeological evidence for such a date, still isn't, and so the archaeologists came back and said show us the bodies, as it were.
And the geneticists have been looking for them ever since. There are some - there are some old remains of doglike animals that go back to about 30,000 years. They're disputed as to whether they're early dogs or not.
FLATOW: But you both would agree that the dog domestication took place before the advent of agriculture and this paper sort of intimating that was the reason?
DERR: I think so.
LARSON: Yeah, that's beyond dispute. I mean, there's only two things about dogs that are not contentious, and one is that it's the very first domesticated animal or plant without question, and that it took place at least a couple thousand years before agriculture, if not much before then.
FLATOW: Yeah, I'm sorry...
DERR: No, I agree to that, yes.
FLATOW: Tell us, if all dogs descended from wolves, how did we go from that to the hundreds, you know, of very different species? If you look at the dog shows, you look at people having all these dogs, they range from the tiny Chihuahua to the big Rottweilers and such.
LARSON: Most of that change is just within the last 150 years. We have - what we've done to dogs, I mean there was quite a few varieties out, but nobody was really doing breeding with closed breeding lines up until the Victorians. And in fact the first small pet dog was really only in Roman times, about 2,000 years ago.
So - and before that we had a good 10,000 years of domestication. I mean, dogs were always serving a purpose. They always had a job to do. And as soon as that job was fulfilled, or as soon as it was no longer required, then those dogs were eliminated right away. And it's only really in the last 150 years that we've gone absolutely mad with more of an aesthetic idea of what a dog should be, and so they all have to have spots, or they all have to have legs that are this long or all have to have a withers height of 35 inches of whatever it is.
And all of that has been a very recent, very directed, very intentional selection that's generated a massive amount of diversity on what is effectively a very limited genetic template. And so it's like a handful of genes that are affecting all of these things, but dogs by and large are very, very closely related to each other, much more than you would guess, given their morphological disparity.
FLATOW: Was this sort of a commercial thing, people saying, you know, trying to sell dogs to people?
DERR: Initially I think it was not commercial, it was a hobby of the wealthy people. The emerging middle class wanted to prove that they could show their wealth off. (Unintelligible) called it conspicuous consumption and referred often to little dogs like Pekingese. There was a time early in the 20th century when a purebred dog cost more than a Model T Ford.
FLATOW: No kidding. Wow. Let's go to...
DERR: Really the democratization of the breed clubs and kennel clubs really occurred after World War II.
FLATOW: Did you want to jump in there, Greg?
LARSON: Well, I was just going to say that you can - I mean, you can still spend 100,000 or 150,000 dollars on a dog. I mean dogs are getting enormously popular in China now, which is somewhat ironic given that during the Cultural Revolution dogs were virtually eliminated from the entirety of the country, and it was very difficult to find any pet dogs.
And now it's becoming much more of a cultural thing, and so to have a nice big dog, a big hairy dog, a very purebred dog, is something that's becoming a (unintelligible) thing to do, a very chi-chi thing to do. And as a result, the market has gone through the roof and people are spending up to 100,000, 200,000 for a puppy.
FLATOW: No kidding.
DERR: Yes, and the problem is they're often buying Western breeds. They're not - they're ignoring their indigenous dogs.
FLATOW: Interesting, let's go to the...
DERR: What's left of them.
FLATOW: Let's go to the phones. Lynn in Princeton, New Jersey. Hi, Lynn.
LYNN: Hi, I wanted to ask you guys if - well, how and why is it that the way in which dogs came to relate to humans could not be described as a parasitic relationship in that, you know, we - wolves don't take in humans, really, but humans are certainly interested in taking critters in, and they, you know, dogs of course now are, you know, more or less totally dependent, but certainly they got benefits right from the beginning.
FLATOW: Good question, thanks, Lynn.
DERR: Well, there certainly are legends of wolves taking in humans, mostly famously Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. But in general you're right. I don't think that dogs are parasitic because they do provide many things. Less so now, but as Greg pointed out earlier, for much of their history dogs have worked. They've earned their keep either as watchdogs...
LARSON: And they still do.
DERR: Yes, indeed.
LARSON: When you consider the range of jobs that dogs are doing now that they never have done before. I mean just think of going through an airport and having bomb-sniffing dogs and cancer-sniffing dogs. And people are putting dogs to uses that they were never used for before.
I mean I think the vast majority of dogs, when we think of them in Western culture, are pet animals that sit at home and sort of make us smile when we get home. But for most of dogs' history, they have been put to very specific tasks, and I wouldn't say it's anything other than very mutualistic.
I mean we've provided them with food and shelter, and they've provided us with a whole range of activities, much more so than any other domestic animal has.
FLATOW: Let me see if I can get a quick call in before the break. Chris in Gillette, Wyoming. Hi, Chris.
CHRIS: How are you doing?
FLATOW: Hi there. Go ahead.
CHRIS: My question is: How do we know, or why do we believe that the wolf came first, and how do we know it wasn't the other way? Maybe the dog went feral, and then the wolf came.
DERR: Well, we do have an example of a population of feral dogs in Australia, the dingo. I think generally there's no evidence that there was a dog existent before the dog. And so in terms of the genetics and what we know from the fossil record, priority goes to the wolf.
FLATOW: Genetically speaking, how close are they, the dog and the wolf?
LARSON: It's difficult to answer that from a - I mean at a percentage figure, but they are - they're much closer to wolves than they are to any other living canid or any other extinct canid as far as we can tell. There is the possibility, I mean, and we know this from a range of different examples, where dogs can reproduce and produce fertile offspring with a number of other things, including coyotes and jackals and red wolves and a variety of other animals.
But - and so there might be some of that DNA kicking around in some of our domestic dogs, but if it's there, it's going to be very, very minute, and the vast majority of everything that is dog is effectively wolf, with a couple of new mutations since domestication that have allowed them to be genetically and morphologically just different enough that we can associate with them in a very different way than we would wolves.
FLATOW: So why are we so afraid to mix in with a wolf, you know, stay away from the wolf, if they're really dogs?
DERR: Good question. There are people are mixing with wolves...
LARSON: The dog has a very important behavioral difference, which is that - and this has been demonstrated time again, where things like if you point, a dog will follow your finger, but a wolf won't. And so dogs have become humanized in such a way that wolves are still a wild animal that is very much in competition with us for natural resources and are still very wary of us.
So - but a dog and a wolf are very, very different animals. And you wouldn't ever want to treat one like the other.
FLATOW: All right, Mark, we'll get your word in right after the break on that. Our number, 1-800-989-8255, talking about dogs and evolution and their relationship to wolves with Mark Derr, author of the book "How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends"; Greger Larson, evolutionary biologist, research scientist at Durham University in England. Our number, 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us @scifri. Stay with us. We'll be right back after this break.
FLATOW: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.
FLATOW: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. We're talking this hour about dogs and evolution and how they domesticate, were domesticated from wolves. Our number, 1-800-989-8255. Our guests are Mark Derr, author of the book "How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends"; Greger Larson, evolutionary biologist and research scientist at Durham University in England. As I say again, our number 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us @scifri.
Mark, did you want to jump in about why, you know, why do they tell us to stay away from wolves if they're so closely related?
DERR: Well, I think the answer is that the wolf is a wild animal, and people want to keep it that way and not mix it in with dogs or vice versa. But the fact is that there are still people who are cross-breeding dogs and wolves. They don't do it to the extent that it's going to make much difference or any difference in the greater dog gene pool, but we also have the problem of the dog being derived from a wolf.
And so I think part of the issue is that when we look at wolves today, we're looking at animals who have been persecuted, often in organized fashion, for well over 1,000 years. And that has to shape their evolution the same way we have shaped the dog.
Yet at the same time there are people who throughout history have tamed wolves or socialized wolves, and even in the 1960s in this country there were people who socialized adult wolves, which was said not to be able to be done.
FLATOW: Let's talk a bit about more - Greg, there was a study done in Russia where they tried to figure out the mechanism that led to the domestication of dogs by looking how to tame foxes. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
LARSON: Sure, this is Dmitry Belyaev, who in the 1950s had this idea that - because for a long period of time, then and as now, people were looking at the dog and trying to figure out exactly how it became domesticated. And a lot of people worked on a trait-by-trait basis. They would say, well, it's got floppy ears, so what evolutionary mechanism can we think about to ensure that the dogs' ears would get floppy?
And people were saying, oh, well, you would select for floppy ears so that it would cover the ears up slightly, and that way it couldn't hear the call of the wild. And what Belyaev was saying was like, look, you have a whole bunch of domestic animals, many of which have a lot of the same kind of general traits.
You get really - you get piebald coats, and you get smaller overall size, you get scrunched faces, upturned tails, floppy ears. And you don't just see this in dogs. You see it in cows and pigs and sheep and goats and all kinds of stuff. And what he figured was rather than selecting for an individual trait, that all, this whole suite of characteristics came along as hitchhiking on what he thought would just be a behavioral trait.
And in order to demonstrate this, he got a bunch of silver foxes, which had never been domesticated before, and he put them in cages, and he did a very simple experiment. He put his hand into the cage, and he measured whether or not they would either cower into the back of the cage and show a fear response, whether they'd be aggressive and try and bite your hand or whether they would be curious and come up and smell the hand of the person who had put their hand in.
And so as a result, he then took those - the top 10 percent of the most curious ones and bred them and kept doing 10 percent, 10 percent for every single subsequent generation, and after only about 20 or 30 years - or he was seeing lots of changes in that time - but after 20 or 30 years, what he developed was a tamed fox.
And by selecting solely for a behavioral trait, what he got was tame foxes that were curious and barked and had floppy ears and piebald coats and upturned tails and all kinds of other stuff. So - and demonstrating his point was that all you had to do was get tameness as a selection pressure, and the whole rest of these physical morphological traits would just kind of tow along and result in a population that was very, very different from the founder population, even though you never selected for any of those traits individually.
And so what people have been suggesting as a result of that is that dog domestication probably occurred along something of the same kinds of lines, where rather than just simply going out and purposefully grabbing a puppy or trying to get a population of wolves and seeing one black one and then going out and grabbing that and trying to select for that, that it was more of a very long-term, gradual process where there was a social and behavioral alteration where the dog, or the wolves, that were most tame already then were getting closer to the humans camps and started eating the things that the human camps had, a lot of the waste products. And those that were able to do so set themselves along this path toward eventual kind of full dogs that we have now.
But those initial processes were not being generated by humans, not being led by humans. And it was just kind of a closening of the relationship and a little bit more of a tameness between both the humans and the dogs.
DERR: Yes, I call them stump-diving, self-domesticated dogs.
LARSON: That seems appropriate.
DERR: The problem with that is that it removes the human from the equation, I think, and we look at how dynamic the human-dog relationship is now and has been, and it's hard to believe that - for me to believe that it would be such a passive experience on the part of early humans.
FLATOW: Uh-huh.
LARSON: Well, I think very initially, I mean, it's certainly passive to start because you can't - there's no way the people without any other domestic model would look at a wolf, who they are competing with for resources, and say. you know what? I'll bet if we spend 15 generations selecting for tameness that we can get a puppy out of that that's really going to be cute.
It's just - you can't start with the final product and then assume that there was a nice, easy, direct path to go from a wolf to a dog. Now absolutely, I mean, humans were smart, and they could do a lot of things deliberately, but I think the initial processes that got things underway didn't have anything to do with any kind of deliberate action on the part of humans who had some sort of forethought or idea of what they wanted to get out of this relationship.
FLATOW: All right...
DERR: No, I don't think they were - they had that kind of forethought, nor do I think cuteness was the goal. But I do think that - wolves, we know - people feed animals all the time, and there are ways that wolves could have helped humans hunt without even being in competition with them. For instance, the humans could follow the wolves to the game they were looking for an interrupt and steal the kill from the wolf. That certainly happens now. People follow wolves, or they follow ravens that are following wolves to caribou herds in the Arctic.
And so I think you have to look from the beginning at an active relationship. That's not to say there's not some self-selection involved by the wolves. Certainly there has to be.
FLATOW: Gentlemen, thank you, we've run out of time. And quite fascinating. My guests are Mark Derr, author of the book "How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends." Greger Larson is an evolutionary biologist and research scientist at Durham University in England. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today.
LARSON: Thank you.
DERR: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
At least there was no pretending. In the language of diplomacy, the greeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extended to Barack Obama on the occasion of his re-election was "correct" and nothing more. "Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulations U.S. President Barack Obama on his election victory," read the public statement issued early Wednesday in Jerusalem, setting up a tepid quote from Netanyahu: "The strategic alliance between Israel and the U.S. is stronger than ever. I will continue to work with President Obama to assure the interests that are vital to the security of Israel." There was no, "Please send my personal congratulations to Michelle and the girls," as Israel's president, Shimon Peres, signed off his own official statement, four paragraphs that glowed with the memory of the June evening that Obama draped the Medal of Freedom over the neck of the octogenarian at the White House. ("Mr. President, you represent the future," Peres wrote, "Your success will be the success of us all.")
The next word out of Balfour Street, where Netanyahu mulled the returns, was a warning to members of his Likud party to shut up about how they figure the premier might really feel. By then, the deputy speaker of the Knesset had already called Obama "naïve" and vowed Israel would not "surrender" to him.
Rarely has a foreign leader been more visibly linked with the electoral prospects of a U.S. president. Netanyahu, whose relations with Obama run from testy to fraught, showed up in a television ad for Mitt Romney. He welcomed the Republican nominee to a work meeting during Romney's gaffe-riddled foreign swing, then had Romney and his wife over to dinner. The men worked together at a Boston consulting firm years ago. They shared positions, patrons – the Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson lavishly funded both men's campaigns – and a keen, if unspoken on the Israeli's part, desire to see Obama serve only one term.
(MORE: What Should the Middle East Expect from Obama's Second Term?)
"It seems like it was not such a good morning for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," interior minster Eli Yishai, a leader of the ultra-orthodox religious Shas party, said Wednesday morning. "Well I think that's an understatement!" a laughing Efraim Inbar, professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv, tells TIME. "Everybody knows he was making a bet. A risky bet."
The risk for Netanyahu is amplified by the timing. Obama won four more years in office just as Netanyahu is beginning his own campaign. In fact, Israelis will go to the polls the day after Obama will be sworn in, a juxtaposition sure to be seized on by political rivals. They were already piling on Wednesday. "After what Netanyahu has done in the past few months – it needs to be asked whether the prime minister has a friend in the White House? I'm not sure," said former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is considering a return to politics after surviving a corruption trial. He accused Netanyahu of promoting Romney at the behest of the billionaire Adelson. The newly formed Yesh Atid party, a vehicle for former anchorman Yair Lapid, called on Netayahu to "fix his shaky relationship with the administration in Washington. During the US election campaign, the prime minister acted and spoke in a way seen as a gross intervention in favor of the Republican candidate."
(Update: Thursday morning's Hebrew language press offered a full menu of recrimination. Under the headline "Netanyahu Gambled, We Will Pay," Sima Kadmon wrote in Yedioth Aronoth: "In his behavior with the Americans, Netanyahu was like the well-known joke about the difference between a schlemiel and a schlimazel—a schlemiel is the one who spills hot soup on the schlimazel. But in this case, Netanyahu is both the schlemiel and the schlimazel: He spilled the hot soup on himself, and he is not the only one who got burned. We all did.")
The friction between Obama and Netanyahu — as evidenced in photos and footage – is in some ways misleading. In Obama's first term, U.S. military support for Israel reached new heights, according to Netanyahu's defense minister, Ehud Barak. But the two governments spent much of the last year sparring over how best to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran over its controversial nuclear program, which many fear will produce atomic weapons. Netanyahu and Barak openly argue for launching an air strike. In fact, Barak this week confirmed a startling report that Netanyahu in 2010 tried to order Israel's military to advance to its highest readiness, effectively preparing for a strike. The order was turned aside by the military chief of staff and Mossad director at the time, who argued it was illegal without a vote of the cabinet.
Obama and his aides, by contrast, insist that crippling economic sanctions imposed against Iran be allowed to run their course, and military action is a last resort. Direct talks between the U.S. administration and Iran reportedly will begin soon.
(MORE: Obama's Iran Policy: Why Diplomacy Remains the Likely Course)
"Netanyahu fears Obama will make a deal with the Iranians without conferring with the Israelis, a continuation of the appeasement policy that has characterized his dealings with Iran," says Inbar, the political scientist. Netanyahu has at times been seen by Israelis as overplaying his hand, but Inbar says most of his fellow countrymen feel secure enough in their essential alliance with America not to fear it can be seriously risked by Netanyahu favoring Obama's rival.
"Israelis of course cherish very much their relationship with the United States," Inbar says. Netanyahu's support for Romney "could have some influence on our own election. I doubt it will have a strong influence, like causing Netanyahu to lose. If he does, it will be for other reasons."
Meanwhile, in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent his own letter of congratulations, via the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem. It harked to negotiations with Israel on the once-central issue that has been shunted into the shadows by Iran and other Middle Eastern narratives, such as Syria and Egypt. Abbas has lately been laying the groundwork both for a U.N. General Assembly vote for status as a non-member state — due to occur sometime in November — and to resume direct talks, not least by refraining from insisting that Israel first cease building homes on Palestinian territory in the West Bank. "I think the Israelis should freeze their settlement," Abbas tells TIME in a Wednesday evening interview. But he stops there.
"Obama again," Abbas says, referring to the results of the U.S. election. "Okay. He's the president of the United States of America. We know him. And we hope that he'll start — restart our contacts with him in order to find a solution. We are optimistic that he'll do something."
MORE: Israel's Coming Elections: Netanyahu Looks Like a Winner–But There May Be Surprises


text:
18409 W. Gages Lake Rd Gages Lake, IL 60030
Mon - Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM
Gages Lake Auto and Light Truck Repair, located in Gages Lake, IL, 60046 has a team of well-trained, knowledgeable Toyota service and maintenance technicians who have years of experience working on Toyotas.
Toyota one of the largest automakers in the world. The Japanese automaker makes a wide variety of vehicles - from hybrids to sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks. Over its history, the automaker has produced several sports cars. It has also been a pioneer in hybrid technology through its Prius vehicle.
Toyota has built itself a reputation of being reliable, carving itself a lot of market share simply based on its cars' reliability. Problems that do arise, old and new, are often in appearance, with many issues relegated to interior fit and finish problems that arise over the life of the car. This depends on the model and year of the Toyota vehicle.
Toyota Vehicles Fixed At Affordable Prices
Gages Lake Auto and Light Truck Repair has a well-trained staff of Toyota service technicians who are ready to service any of your Toyota vehicle needs. We understand the hardships you face when you're without a vehicle, so we will quickly get your vehicle back on the road. Gages Lake Auto and Light Truck Repair prides itself on offering affordable repairs. Our friendly staff is waiting to service your Toyota vehicle. You can give us a call or visit our service center.


text:
Chad Billingsley (12-10, 4.05) vs. Ross Detwiler (0-6, 5.80).
DODGERS' MAGIC NUMBERS: 2 (to make playoffs), 6 (to win division)
COMMENTS: This may not be Chadley's last chance to redeem his 2009 season, but it's his best chance. A poor performance by Bills against the Glass Joe of the majors would just about ruin his chances of starting the in playoffs. However, a strong performance wouldn't necessarily guarantee him a start, and a so-so performance would just leave us all frustrated. Hopefully the bats will follow their cue from yesterday's drubbing and provide Mr. Thighs with some run support, allowing Chad to Punch-Out!! the Nads!


text:
It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.
And I'm Renee Montagne. Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee approved military force in Syria after first trying to make sure they didn't give away too much. Lawmakers sent the Senate a resolution after struggling to reconcile competing goals. Senators wanted to narrow the U.S. commitment in Syria, yet they also wanted to avoid tying the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. NPR's Larry Abramson reports.
LARRY ABRAMSON, BYLINE: Without question, lawmakers' biggest fear is that U.S. troops could be coming home in body bags from Syria. Before a House hearing yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry was at pains to convince lawmakers, the president does not want to see any U.S. casualties.
ABRAMSON: But promises may not be enough. Some members, like Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, said she wants tighter language than the Senate version, which only prohibits the use of U.S. troops in a combat role.
ABRAMSON: The House may well insist on tougher language barring the use of troops. That brings up a key tension for Congress. Can lawmakers rein in the president, without limiting the military's effectiveness on an unpredictable battlefield? Even on the issue of boots on the ground, the Senate version leaves the president some wiggle room. Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation says, the president may still claim the power to use troops once the battle begins.
CULLY STIMSON: In other words, we're not authorizing them, wink wink, nod nod, but of course we realize and recognize that you have the constitutional authority to put them in harm's way.
ABRAMSON: Lawmakers are also trying to set a time limit on U.S. involvement - that's to avoid a drawn out conflict. Republican Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey recalls what happened in 1999, when the U.S. participated in the NATO bombing of Serbia during the war over Kosovo. Even though Congress did not approve that action, President Clinton had promised lawmakers a short campaign.
ABRAMSON: To prevent a repeat, the Senate version would limit the campaign to 60 days, with a possible 30 day extension, something the White House appears willing to accept. In building these restrictions, Congress has many negative experiences to draw from: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, went on much longer than planned.
And Congress is still smarting from the 2001 authorization of military force that launched the war on terror. That broadly worded document is still in effect, and it has been used to justify drone strikes that have killed thousands, from Pakistan to Yemen. The question is, according to George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin, what happens if the mission in Syria isn't done in 90 days.
ILYA SOMIN: That, I think, is a more realistic and perhaps more dangerous scenario where the president could clash with Congress but it would be a very substantial risk for him to do so in that way.
ABRAMSON: But professor Ilya Somin says even without these congressional limits, the White House is likely to be cautious about extending this campaign. That's because, as lawmakers emphasized during this week's hearings, polling shows there's very limited popular support for the attacks on Syria. Larry Abramson, NPR News, Washington. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
(And does anyone else have the munchies?)
UPDATE: From the desk of Ms. G. Selph:
Dear Reader,
Please note that the authors and employees of Cake Wrecks™ and all of its subsidiaries, including but not limited to Cake Wrecks Footwear™ and Cake Wrecks Plumbing and Air Conditioning™, in no way mean to imply or construe that any or all names used in today's post are in any way, shape, or form "stupid-like." (Even those that are.) We apologize for any confusion.
Gaffudga Selph


text:
For now,let us see what this month's punch is all about.We chose a Pizza recipe as this month we bake bread.I host this month's challenge,so the recipe was chosen by me from The Pioneer Woman,the topping was to be of one's own choice.
Method[for the crust]
In a mixer, combine flour and salt. With the mixer running on low speed (with paddle attachment), drizzle in olive oil until combined with flour. Next, pour in yeast/water mixture and mix until just combined.
Mushroom Capsicum Topping/Sauce
Onion - 1,chopped finely
Tomatoes- 2-3 medium,chopped finely
Capsicum - 1,chopped finely
Button Mushrooms - 4,chopped finely
Tomato Puree - 2 tbsp
Tomato Ketchup - 1 tbsp
Sugar - 1 tsp
Oregano - 1 tsp
Pepper - 1/2 tsp
Oil - 1 tbsp
Salt to Taste
In a pan, heat the oil and add the onions. Fry for a minute or two. Add the capsicum and mushrooms and fry for 2-3 minutes. Add the oregano, salt, sugar and pepper and fry for another minute. Add the tomatoes and fry for 2-3 minutes. Add the puree and ketchup and cook the mixture for a couple of minutes.
For making the Pizza
Sprinkle your pizza stone or baking sheet with cornmeal/semolina.Roll out the pizza to your liking[thin/thick].
Spread the oil over the dough. Spread enough sauce over the base. Sprinkle the cheese over the pizza.
How did we like it - I served this Pizza during the much watched India-Srilanka World Cup final.To be honest,the match was so nail-biting that anything served on the plate would have disappeared!Jokes apart,this pizza was much appreciated,especially the sauce.I made two pizzas of the said measurement.Though I am not very happy with the looks[the pizza did not brown evenly though it was cooked fine]the taste is great and I guess that is fine for the time being!


text:
Listing courtesy of Sandelands Realty
226 feet on Mille Lacs Lake Channel! 30×28 garage with concrete floor. Nicely wooded lot. Landscape for easy access to channel frontage. Channel gives you access to the main lake in minutes w/protection from those windy days! Great area – close to golf, other area lakes, Garrison and 30 minutes to Brainerd!
Listing courtesy of Sandelands Realty © 2017 Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. All rights Reserved. The data relating to real estate for sale on this web site comes in part from the Broker Reciprocity Program of the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. Real estate listings held by brokerage firms other than Sandelands Realty are marked with the Broker Reciprocity logo. Any use of search facilities of data on this site, other than by a consumer looking to purchase real estate, is prohibited. No part of this search utility may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. Information Deemed Reliable, but Not Guaranteed. The property information being provided is for consumers' personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing.
Data services provided by IDX Broker
Price: | $55,900 USD |
Address: | TBD Walleye Way |
City: | Garrison Twp |
County: | Crow Wing |
State: | Minnesota |
Zip Code: | 56450 |
Acres: | 0.626 |
Lot Square Feet: | 0.626 acres |
Property Type: | Lots and Land |


text:
A development blog of what Con Kolivas is doing with code at the moment with the emphasis on linux kernel, MuQSS, BFS and -ck.
Monday 9 September 2013
BFS 0.441, 3.11-ck1
BFS by itself:
Full -ck1 patchset including separate patches:
Apart from the usual resync to keep up with the mainline churn, there are a few additions from BFS 0.440. A number of changes dealing with wake lists as done by mainline were added that were missing from the previous code. There is a good chance that these were responsible for a large proportion of the suspend/resume issues people were having with BFS post linux 3.8. Of course I can't guarantee that all issues have been resolved, but it has been far more stable in my testing so far.
The other significant change is to check for throttled CPUs when choosing an idle CPU to move a process to, which should impact the behaviour and possibly throughput when using a scaling CPU governor, such as ondemand.
Those of you still using the evil proprietary Nvidia binary driver (as I still do) will encounter some issues and will need to use a patched pre-release driver from them if you build it yourself, until they release a new driver.
That is all for now.
123 comments:
Thanks CK! Glad you were able to find some time to dig into the suspend problem. I know the linux-ck user base will gladly provide feedback.
I will preform the usual "make" benchmarks and post to my blog (linking here). Stay tuned.RepliesI did the usual 'make' benchmark comparing BFS v0.441 to CFS in Linux version 3.11. Usual results found: BFS is statistically faster. See details in blogpost:
...why can't I edit my posts? Only option is to delete.
- Anonymous9 September 2013 at 18:38
"which should impact the behaviour and possibly throughput"
positively or negatively? It works, but still needed the following patch to make kernel bootable:
https://gist.github.com/d2bfec5758573341d656- Anonymous10 September 2013 at 01:59
Thank you for your work.
Quick question: for those of use using the evil binary driver from NVIDIA, what patched pre-relase driver are you refeering to?Replies- Beojan Stanislaus11 September 2013 at 05:00
I'd like to second this request. Where can I obtain this patched NVidia driver?
Delete - Beojan Stanislaus11 September 2013 at 05:19
I ended up downloading the tarball for the arch nvidia-ck packages, and applying the to the nvidia sources installed by apt.
Sleep/suspend still doesn't work well on my machine. How could I debug?
I'm running Archlinux with graysky binaries. When the sleep procedure is initiated, the disks power down, but the PC remains with the fans on and a blinking white cursor on the screen.Replies- Anonymous12 September 2013 at 02:57
Same here. At least the machine does not hang anymore, it simply does not suspend neither using systemctl suspend nor kde (which uses pm-utils I think). Using Archlinux and graysky's repo binaries for nehalem processors.
Delete Odd, all of my suspend resume issues have gone away, but I'm not using systemd so perhaps that's related? Try adding the no_console_suspend option to your kernel boot command and see if there's any meaningful information there.
DeleteCONFIG_HZ_1000 fixed the suspend issue for me.
Everything lower than this and it breaks at:
smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
Most of the times it reaches CPU 5 and then crashes.With no_console_suspend this is what I got:
http://i.imgur.com/eZDVTFo.jpg@big-bum - Can you try recompiling with 1000 Hz tick rate as Jan suggested? Does that fix it?
DeleteYes. Recompiled with HZ=1000, now it works OK.
From 4 suspend test all worked fine. I think 1000Hz is the solution.If it still needs 1000Hz to work correctly, then there is still a bug.
DeleteThis solution didn't worked all the time... I get random crashes on resume. So I reverted to lower HZ and tried debug the problem again.
This time the backtraces look a bit more helpful:
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/45174/38125077/Here is another backtrace for the blocked task.
Happens on "echo 0 > /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu2/online"
[ 152.502382] task PC stack pid father
[ 152.502405] zsh D ffff88023fa91ac0 0 5282 5281 0x00000000
[ 152.502410] ffff880236123ca0 0000000000000082 ffff88023689f330 ffff880221869fd8
[ 152.502413] ffff880221869fd8 ffff880221869fd8 ffff880236123ca0 ffff880221868000
[ 152.502415] ffff880221869e80 00000000ffffffff ffffffff8195c744 ffff880236123ca0
[ 152.502418] Call Trace:
[ 152.502425] [] ? schedule_preempt_disabled+0x1a/0x20
[ 152.502428] [] ? __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x134/0x220
[ 152.502430] [] ? mutex_lock+0xe/0x20
[ 152.502434] [] ? store_online+0x1f/0xc0
[ 152.502439] [] ? sysfs_write_file+0xb9/0x140
[ 152.502443] [] ? vfs_write+0xb3/0x1e0
[ 152.502446] [] ? SyS_write+0x43/0x90
[ 152.502448] [] ? page_fault+0x1f/0x30
[ 152.502452] [] ? system_call_fastpath+0x1a/0x1f
- Anonymous10 September 2013 at 08:03
Regarding the microsleep ondemand fix I would like to have a backport to linux-3.10
(This LTS one will be longer used by many gentoo users for example)
Greetings and thanks from Hamburg, Germany
Ralph Ulrich - Anonymous10 September 2013 at 22:15
Regarding the sleep/suspend issue, I have obtained the following message after an
albeit successful resume on a thinkpad R60:
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1804 at kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c:2571 rb_reserve_next_event.isra.48+0x227/0x327()
Delta way too big! 18446741873297462717 ts=18446744063829990609 write stamp = 2190532527892
If you just came from a suspend/resume,
please switch to the trace global clock:
echo global > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_clock
Hope this may be of help
Greetings from Rome,
Simone - Anonymous12 September 2013 at 06:54
Will these changes be ported to kernel 3.10?
As it is a long term kernel I'd like to keep using it for a while.Replies- Anonymous13 September 2013 at 03:15
More than a "I want you to" is a "would be a good idea".
As kernel 3.10 is a longterm one, it will be the first choice for those who need a stable kernel; this does not fit alltogether with BFS and suspension :( I'll be sticking to 3.10 for a while. And I guess quite a few other people too. Though of course I understand that maintaining two different trees isn't everyone's idea of fun. Fortunately, BFS for 3.10 works without issues for me (unless a minor kernel update breaks it.)
Delete- Anonymous14 September 2013 at 17:59
I am not saying "I want you to", what I meant is: "would be a good idea".
As kernel 3.10 is a longterm one, many people will stick to that, having these fixes in BFS for 3.10 would make those people (like me) able to use a stable -ck kernel for a while.
- Anonymous16 September 2013 at 19:08
Kernel 3.11 is soo good that I don't have to use BSF anymore...
ReplyDelete - Anonymous17 September 2013 at 12:13
3.11 with BFS & BFQ is worse than ever seen.
I've ported my setup to the new machine, 3.10.xyz and many things got better, but the usual problems remainded:
SWAP, SHM & their interaction got worse. Unusable with 3.11.
With 3.10.12 + both patchsets I don't have as much problems.
And I won't use 3.11.z any longer with your promoted patches, CK, until there is a usable kernel for them.
Please, also, prepare a backport of BFS-422 for the longtime 3.10.x!
Thanks, Manuel Krause - Anonymous17 September 2013 at 12:51
And the backport should clarify if it's 3.11 OR 3.10 related, Manuel
ReplyDelete Dear graysky,
i noticed that if i use the newest linux-ck (Sandybridge) my external USB Mouse stopped working after about 5 sec.
With linux-3.11.1-1 all seams right.
Anybody else noticed that? Or is it just me (Lenovo E530 i7)RepliesSounds like a powersaving option, but if you're saying the non-ck kernel does not exhibit this behavior and that is the only change, that does raise my level of suspicion. The real test would be for you to compile linux-ck from the AUR twice:
1) Untouched PKGBUILD, compile, install reboot. Does this happen?
2) Since the ck1 patchset is preapplied to the configs in the linux-ck package, you will need to grab the official ARCH config (or config.x86_64) and overwrite the ones included in the linux-ck.tar.gz source package. Then update the sha256sums in the PKGBUILD, and then comment out the line that patches the source with CK1 (line 120 in 3.11.1-2-ck). Now compile, install, reboot, recheck. Does it still happen? If so, it it highly likely to be something in the ck1 patchset.Thanks! I use repo-ck so i dont change anything.
I will try the thing you said using aur tomorrow and report to you.
1000 times thanks, graysky!Strange thinks happend, it seams that if i had the Powercable of my Laptop plugged in the mouse continue to work. But as soon i deplug the Powercable the Mouse switches of.
So it might be a patchset problem. Any tipps for powersetting configuration?
All the best.
- Anonymous9 October 2013 at 11:09
I made the backport of
3.11-sched-bfs-442.patch to
for consumation with Longtermstable Linux-3.10
It was quiet easy. Beside just copying I just
added a spinlock.h function alias.
See attachement found in Gentoo bug at
Greeting from Hamburg, Germany
Ralph UlrichReplies- Anonymous9 October 2013 at 20:30
Courtesy to PaulBredbury who made the diff
310-sched-bfs-440-to-442 , you found there:
Me wonder: Should I apply the relocation of mutex_lock of Alfred Chen (look down of this blog thread) also for Linux-3.10?
Ralph Ulrich
Here is my patch to remove dead lock warning at system boot up which I reported some time ago.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/bfs.c b/kernel/sched/bfs.c
index 763d417..3a617be 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/bfs.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/bfs.c
@@ -6940,6 +6940,7 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
* Set up the relative cache distance of each online cpu from each
@@ -6953,7 +6954,6 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
- mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
int locality, other_cpu;
@@ -6983,7 +6983,6 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
rq->cpu_locality[other_cpu] = locality;
- mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
* Each runqueue has its own function in case it doesn't have
@@ -6999,6 +6998,7 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
void __init sched_init_smp(void)Replies- Anonymous9 October 2013 at 21:33
Alfred Chan puts the
mutex_lock (respective mutex_unlock)
outside of
If mutex_lock is meant for one cpu
this sound reasonable? Is it?
Ralph Ulrich @Ralph Ulrich
Thanks for the review and comment. As my understanding, sched_domains_mutex is not for one cpu, there is existed code which make sure sched_domains_mutex is held then run into for_each_cpu loop, the online code is at http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/sched/core.c#L5398- Anonymous10 October 2013 at 21:03
@Chen, I booted with two Linux-3.11 and Linux-3.10 (see my backport above) your patch applyd:
Runs fine! Feels faster!
Also another guy in the Gentoo forum ran with your patch!
I wonder if benchmarks of Graysky of Archlinux would see the difference?
Ralph Ulrich @Ralph Ulrich
Thanks for testing. As this fix just locate in __init sched_init_smp, which just be invoked when system boot up, so I don't think performance boost is expected.
I finally managed to at least find a workaround for the suspend crash.
It seems there is a problem with the process migration in the cpu offline code.
simply run this command before suspending:
ps -eo pid | xargs -I'{}' taskset -pc 0 {}
this sets all processes on cpu 0 so no need for migration
after resuming this: (you have to change this to your core count this is for a 4 core i7 ):
ps -eo pid | xargs -I'{}' taskset -pc 0-7 {}Hi greysky, it's me again.
I updated my linux-ck-sandybridge via repo-ck to 3.11.5 and now if got this problem if i want to load the nvidia module.
sudo modprobe nvidia
modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'nvidia': Exec format error
This don't happen if i use the stock arch kernel (3.11.4).
Should i run the nvidia-bug-report and post the results?
Jan- Anonymous16 October 2013 at 01:53
Yes, OT, but i think, it´s interesting:
"Here's Why Radeon Graphics Are Faster On Linux 3.12"
have funReplies- Anonymous16 October 2013 at 11:18
The mentioned patch works for me with LTS Linux-310.16-442.bfs
But I had to disable bfs patching of cpufreq-ondemand.c
Ralph Ulrich - Anonymous16 October 2013 at 21:52
also "Nouveau Performance Is Faster With Linux 3.12"
i think, these patches are a great improvement, very interesting for LTS user
with a few modifications, these 3 patches works for me with 3.10+bfs+bfq and 3.11+bfs+bfq
Con, please, what do you think, 80 or 63, 100000 or 10 ...?
# ondemand-patches
#define DEF_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD (80)
#define DEF_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (1)
#define MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (100000)
# bfs
#define DEF_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD (63)
#define DEF_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (1)
#define MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (10)
thx - Anonymous17 October 2013 at 02:48
Thank you for encouraging to apply these three patches! Currently running @3.11.5+BFS+BFQ with integrated Intel graphics GM45. Seems to work well and I hope we won't face any latency or power consumption related regressions. I'm looking forward to PHORONIX testing the latter..
BTW, in my kernel from the openSUSE repo the only difference is
#define DEF_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD (63) -- vs. -- (80).
There is no #define MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (10) in BFS/ck1.
Cheers, Manuel - Anonymous17 October 2013 at 03:47
Manuel, you´re right, the only difference is
#define DEF_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD (63) -- vs. -- (80).
there is a #define MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR (10), but it´s for
cpufreq_conservative.c - (100000) is for cpufreq_ondemand.c and
there is no change of this in v3-1-3-cpufreq-ondemand....patch
sorry, in the heat of the battle..... ;)
thx - Anonymous17 October 2013 at 04:10
No problem, that you agree. ;-)
Would be interesting, though, what you say about that 63 vs. 80 difference.
ATM, I can tell that my notebooks fan is running @ higher rpm than before, what is o.k. when also running the BOINC client and not on batteries. And if I correctly interprete the PHORONIX diagrams, this should be the intended result of the patches: That we don't have idle cycles if they are not indicated by the actual (CPUs) load.
Greets, Manuel
- Anonymous19 October 2013 at 06:33
performance drop with ck1, can somebody confirm this?
Phoronix Test Suite v4.8.3
running only point 3: "Run Complex System Test"
3.11.5+stable_queue / 3.11.5+stable_queue+ck1
3048 / 2173 TPS -- PostMark
7545.56 / 7026.06 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Average/Integer]
7598.59 / 7142.49 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Average/Floating Point]
43.35 / 44.09 Seconds -- C-Ray
22213.19 / 14038.33 RPS -- Apache Benchmark
i will test bfs (not ck) later. - Anonymous20 October 2013 at 02:17
3.11.5+stable_queue / 3.11.5+stable_queue+ck1 / 3.11.5+stable_queue+bfs
3048 / 2173 / 2083 TPS -- PostMark
7545.56 / 7026.06 / 7037.25 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Average/Integer]
7598.59 / 7142.49 / 7148.92 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Average/Floating Point]
43.35 / 44.09 / 44.05 Seconds -- C-Ray
22213.19 / 14038.33 / 13624.50 RPS -- Apache BenchmarkReplies- Anonymous20 October 2013 at 03:55
latest 3.11-stable patches from
- Anonymous21 October 2013 at 08:25
Kernel: 3.11.6 | Scheduler: cfs/bfs
_1: - .config from siduction
cfs_1: - IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING=y
bfs_1: - IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING=y SCHED_BFS=y
apart from that, cfs_1 & bfs_1 are identical (except NUMA_BALANCING | CGROUP_CPUACCT | CGROUP_SCHED | SCHED_AUTOGROUP (all disabled by bfs))
_2: - .config by me
cfs_2: - TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
bfs_2: - IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING=y SCHED_BFS=y
bfs_3: - TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y SCHED_BFS=y
apart from that, cfs_2 & bfs_2 are identical (except NUMA_BALANCING | CGROUP_CPUACCT | CGROUP_SCHED | SCHED_AUTOGROUP !!!and!!! TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING (all disabled by bfs))
bfs_2 & bfs_3 are identical, except IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING/TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING
cfs_1 / bfs_1 / cfs_2 / bfs_2 / bfs_3
2403.00 / 1693.00 / 3086.00 / 2174.00 / 2130.00 TPS -- PostMark
7242.90 / 7463.08 / 7481.70 / 7067.49 / 7260.16 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Int]
7339.97 / 7504.71 / 7576.60 / 7110.45 / 7400.83 MB/s -- RAMspeed SMP [Float]
0044.18 / 0043.27 / 0043.36 / 0043.99 / 0043.33 Sec -- C-Ray
18725.01 / 4364.33 / 23478.09 / 14183.98 / 14443.12 RPSec -- Apache Benchmark
there is a great perf. improvement with cfs and .config (cfs_2)
with bfs and a nearly identical config (bfs_2), the performance will drop
with TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y, the lost in the RAMspeed test is not so high (bfs_3)Replies- Anonymous22 October 2013 at 04:41
Thank you for your great effort!
Did you notice any desktop latency related regressions when running your bfs_3 .config (e.g. compared to bfs_2)?
Greetings, Manuel Krause - Anonymous22 October 2013 at 07:34
Currently running 3.11.6 with BFS, BFQ, the three aforementioned "Radeon faster" patches and the manual enablement of TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y instead of IRQ...
Works well and seems to be a bit snappier when browsing with latest Firefox ESR while watching .avi videos in parallel. Also, editing >this here< is better with this setup when having the normal use case up.
Thanks, Manuel Krause
P.S.: Why does Con Kolivas not contribute to his blog in recent time? - Anonymous22 October 2013 at 22:03
sorry, i can´t say anything about desktop interactivity and responsiveness. I only try to figure out what config-options will make the perf. drop. I am not sure with anything at moment and i will do some more benchmarks. What i can say:
TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING seems to be faster than IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE seems to be faster than CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC
Please be patient (for a few days (or weeks)), i will post my cognitions.
tww I don't know how much RAM throughput affects performance, but in Graysky's compile benchmark in 3.11 BFS was clearly the winner: http://grayskysblog.blogspot.it/2013/09/bfs-v0441-vs-cfs-in-linux-3110.html
Delete- Anonymous26 October 2013 at 21:16
Kernel: 3.11.6+bfs+bfq
HZ_PERIODIC+IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING - 2000 TPS - 7035/7083 MB/s - 44.06 Sec - 09502 RPSec
HZ_PERIODIC+TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING - 2016 TPS - 7330/7455 MB/s - 43.31 Sec - 09558 RPSec
NO_HZ_IDLE+IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING -- 2438 TPS - 7748/7813 MB/s - 43.22 Sec - 10110 RPSec
NO_HZ_IDLE+TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING -- 2427 TPS - 7800/7863 MB/s - 43.23 Sec - 10037 RPSec
I could not figure out, which option affected the apache performance. - Anonymous27 October 2013 at 03:50
http://pastebin.com/DKycayLK - Anonymous4 November 2013 at 23:59
2551 TPS - 7461/7565 MB/s - 43.15 Sec - 09961 RPSec
interbench-0.31: http://pastebin.com/zWbHd90Z
2525 TPS - 7479/7558 MB/s - 43.14 Sec - 10074 RPSec
same as above (-zram), but with
2551 TPS - 7443/7483 MB/s - 43.20 Sec - 09984 RPSec
2688 TPS - 7456/7528 MB/s - 43.18 Sec - 10258 RPSec
2688 TPS - 7464/7523 MB/s - 43.17 Sec - 10154 RPSec
2631 TPS - 7520/7560 MB/s - 43.18 Sec - 10215 RPSec
2747 TPS - 7530/7543 MB/s - 43.13 Sec - 10280 RPSec
2688 TPS - 7754/7820 MB/s - 43.16 Sec - 09844 RPSec
2688 TPS - 7833/7920 MB/s - 43.15 Sec - 10169 RPSec
2688 TPS - 7758/7847 MB/s - 43.22 Sec - 10037 RPSec
interbench-0.31: http://pastebin.com/zVD3v0AZ - Anonymous5 November 2013 at 00:09
# CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
# CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is not set
# CONFIG_CLEANCACHE is not set
# CONFIG_CMA is not set
# CONFIG_KSM is not set
# CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is not set
# CONFIG_ZSWAP is not set
# CONFIG_ZRAM is not set
# CONFIG_ZRAM_DEBUG is not set
but i´m not sure about
feel free
greets tww - Anonymous6 November 2013 at 22:38
Lots of low-jitter stuff here: http://ovekarlsen.com/Blog/turning-ubuntu-12-04-into-a-professional-low-jitter-os/
Peace Be With You.
Just noticed that while I am launching a compile job with -j num_core_in_my_system, UI responsiveness is impacted (ie: mouse cursor severely micro-blocking, web browser taking a very long time to load pages).
I am wondering if this behavior is surprising and if using schedtool -I on the Xserver would be a good idea to workaround this issue.Replies> I am wondering if this behavior is surprising and if using schedtool -I on the Xserver would be a good idea to workaround this issue.
not surprising if all processes run in same scheduling class. You should start your compiler task with schedtool -D. In fact, I start every xterm that way by adding the following to my .profile and .bashrc (the latter sources the former):
if [ "$TERM" = "xterm" ]; then
schedtool -D $$
ionice -c 3 -p $$
fiMartin, awesome trick. I'll give a shoot to set ui terminal windows priority to IDLE. So basically every cmdline jobs have lower priority than anything using the GUI.
I'm assuming that all children inherit priority settings.
It will fix the GUI responsiveness for sure but I would have though that, out of the box, responsiveness would better.Hi Oliver,
I use for the make job the toolsched from Con, you can find it on this blog, but 1 year or so in the past. It does automatically use the schedtool for make (and other user defined apps). But if there are big compile jobs with heavy io, it could be a problem with "vm.dirty_ratio", as described by me below. If the cache is to big, the write back of data to the disk take to long and blocks the other apps.
Btw. Con, I do have a question for toolsched. If I use 'sudo make install' than I got a error, that make is not found. Ok, I can use 'su -c "make install" ', but thats not sudo. Any suggestions?
cu sysitos
with bfs apply to ubuntu source.
seems just let this code
" struct sched_rt_entity rt;"
move out to the else
but i move out the three code out of else.- el mariachi29 October 2013 at 06:50
I have been experiencing random shutdowns since some time ago. I cannot say for sure after which upgrade, but I'm positive it only occurs in the 3.11 series.
My laptop simply shuts down (not a reboot!), the battery led lighting up for a second. After this, pressing the power button doesn't "wake up" the screen, which remains black and without any power (i.e. not even the backlight turns on). I press the power button once again, for a hard shutdown, and then everything works again. I cannot see a pattern -- sometimes this happens as soons as I boot into X, other times it can be after hours, even days.
Booting with the vanilla ARCH kernel never elicits this behaviour, hence my suspicion that the kernel might be culprit.
http://pastebin.com/qZFgkiFB Phoronix: "BFS Scheduler Lost Some Charm With Linux 3.11" http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTUwNDI
ReplyDeleteReplies- Anonymous8 November 2013 at 04:34
2450 TPS - 7448/7569 MB/s - 43.25 Sec - 18703 RPSec
3.11.6-1 vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig -bfs
2427 TPS - 7497/7507 MB/s - 43.35 Sec - 18592 RPSec
3.11.6-3 vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig +bfs
1724 TPS - 7457/7557 MB/s - 43.20 Sec - 04376 RPSec
3.11.6-2 vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig -bfs XXX
interbench-0.31: http://pastebin.com/tyXRAhrk
2380 TPS - 7870/7940 MB/s - 43.43 Sec - 19334 RPSec
3.11.6-2t vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig -bfs YYY
2525 TPS - 7780/7857 MB/s - 43.40 Sec - 18922 RPSec
3.11.6-4 vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig +bfs XXX
interbench-0.31: http://pastebin.com/dwbE87nL
1712 TPS - 7746/7819 MB/s - 43.19 Sec - 04431 RPSec
3.11.6-4t vanilla+siductionconf+localmodconfig +bfs YYY
1923 TPS - 7763/7825 MB/s - 43.20 Sec - 04015 RPSec
# CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
# CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is not set
# CONFIG_CLEANCACHE is not set
# CONFIG_CMA is not set
# CONFIG_KSM is not set
# CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is not set
# CONFIG_ZSWAP is not set
# CONFIG_ZSMALLOC is not set
# CONFIG_ZRAM is not set
# CONFIG_ZRAM_DEBUG is not set
# CONFIG_CROSS_MEMORY_ATTACH is not set
# CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING is not set
# CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS is not set
# CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set
# CONFIG_USER_NS is not set
TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING instead of IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING - Anonymous9 November 2013 at 05:20
@ Jan Killius - can you give me your config, please!?
for clarification:
XXX+TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING instead of XXX+IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
- Anonymous9 November 2013 at 01:59
Another time again a question to you latency addicted people:
Does someone of you know any knobs, hints or web-links on how to ease the pain of heavy swapping I/O?
(I've ported my setup to the newer machine with Core2duo, 4GB RAM, 4GB /dev/shm & 10GB of swap on the 2nd disk. Often using the /dev/shm as a RAMDISK to decode files to and re-code them back to disk from there.) Now with 3.11.7+BFQ+BFS as of ck1. During swapping, avi video replay will stutter in frames for video and sound.
I've, so far, experimented with /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio, .../dirty_background_ratio, .../swappiness, and even with "schedtool -R -p 99 -n -19 `pidofproc -n kswapd0`" or "ionice -p `pidofproc -n kswapd0`" -- but don't see any direction to follow.
I'm in doubt if there is an issue between /dev/shm + swap + physical RAM "communication".
Thank you in advance for sharing your ideas/findings,
Manuel KrauseRepliesHi Manuel,
had here similiar problems (but could be different causes!) with newer kernels and BFS and BFQ, writing to some slow devices (USB Thumb drive and NFS share over my wlan) leads to a unusable system. The whole systems freeze for 10 second and more. (See it on the jumping clock applet). Using here a i7 with 8GB Ram and that should not happen on Linux ;). So I found a solution for my problem, described here http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7010287. Changed the default 40 to "vm.dirty_ratio = 4" and "vm.dirty_background_ratio = 2". Now its really snappier, no more drop outs.
Maybe it could you help too.
cu sysitos- Anonymous9 November 2013 at 05:18
Hi Manuel, you can try also
the .config options from above
"Set sampling_down_factor to greater than 1 it acts as a multiplier for the scheduling interval for reevaluating load when the CPU is at its top speed due to high load. This improves performance by reducing the overhead of load evaluation and helping the CPU stay at its top speed when truly busy, rather than shifting back and forth in speed. Valid values are from 1-100000"
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_down_factor
echo 10 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_down_factor
"The value is in milliseconds, and the default value is set to 6ms. Valid values are from 1 to 1000. Decreasing the value will decrease latencies at the cost of decreasing throughput, while increasing it will improve throughput, but at the cost of worsening latencies"
cat /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval
echo 4 > /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval
and adding -fno-defer-pop to cflags and cxxflags:
http://ovekarlsen.com/Blog/turning-ubuntu-12-04-into-a-professional-low-jitter-os/ Hi Manuel,
if you use a Intel Core2Duo, than I would prefere X86_INTEL_PSTATE and switch from ondemand (at least on 3.11, 3.12 should be better with ondemand) to powersave (Laptop) or performance (PC) governor. I had some trouble with it, already described on this blog, with some detailed links.
cu sysitos- Anonymous10 November 2013 at 01:01
Thank you very much for these hints, fo far! Needs some time for testing. :-)
Regarding the cflags & cxxflags: I'm not sure where to add the -fno-defer-pop. I've added them at the end of HOSTCFLAGS & HOSTCXXFLAGS, but reading /usr/src/linux/kernel/bounds.s this is not persistent, -fdefer-pop remains active.
Any ideas? Thank you in advance,
Manuel - Anonymous10 November 2013 at 12:25
KBUILD_CFLAGS := -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
-fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common \
-Werror-implicit-function-declaration \
-Wno-format-security \
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -fno-defer-pop
I believe... - Anonymous12 November 2013 at 05:06
Thank you, Anonymous @10 November 2013 12:25, that made the -fno-defer-pop persistent! -- And it seems to have a positive effect.
I have to say, that I already had applied the ondemand-governor patches when they came up in this blog's thread.
Setting /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_down_factor to sth. > 1 doesn't help.
Regarding the vm tunables, I've now:
8 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio (default openSUSE 12.3 @ 20)
3 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio (default -"- @ 10)
70 > /proc/sys/vm/swappiness (default -"- @ 60)
Going lower with these values I'd get more stuttering in A/V playback during swapping. But it's very hard to subjectively distinguish interactivity with each variation of these three tunables.
Additionally, setting the BFQ runtime tunable "low_latency" to 0 (i.e. off instead of 1 == on == default) results in worse interactivity. Just for the records.
And... then I've set CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_PRIO=94 (results in -95 in htop) letting me to manually adjust the prios of kswapd, kwin, Xorg and pulseaudio via schedtool higher or lower than RCU_BOOST_PRIO. But at the latest from then I'm currently flying blindly, so far.
Adjusting rr_interval slightly higher / lower than 6 (BFS default) both decreased interactivity, on here.
Best regards, Manuel Krause - Anonymous13 November 2013 at 21:58
How much does -fno-defer-pop persistent affect performance? Also, I saw you and Mike suggesting different tweaks and was wondering if there is any consensus about which values to use for the vm tunables on a desktop (activities like web browsing, watching movies, compiling...)
Delete - Anonymous14 November 2013 at 07:40
Sorry, guys'n gals, I'm quite new with linux benchmarking.
I want to deliver the above questioned performance-diff in the way of the previously posted ones and installed the most recent PTS and miss a GUI or a value in the console version to select "point 3 'complex system test'" as mentioned in "Anonymous 19 October 2013 06:33" in this thread.
Thank you for any help,
Manuel Krause - Anonymous14 November 2013 at 08:45
#!/usr/bin/env xdg-open
[Desktop Entry]
Name=Phoronix Test Suite
GenericName=Benchmarking Utility
Comment=An Automated, Open-Source Testing Framework
Comment[fr]=Outil pour étalonner les performances de votre ordinateur
Exec=phoronix-test-suite interactive
Categories=System;Monitor; - Anonymous15 November 2013 at 03:15
OMG! Sorry! It obviously was to late last night and I was too blind to find that "/usr/bin/phoronix-test-suite interactive" would lead to the selections menu. Some follow-up questions: Do you run it with X desktop up and in a console window? As root? Or booted into single user session without X?
Thank you, Manuel Krause - Anonymous16 November 2013 at 00:26
It's a pity -- the results don't show relly relevant performance differences in PTS complex system test (with only KDE up in a konsole) on here:
-fdefer-pop / -fno-defer-pop
159 / 161 Tps - PostMark
2810.11 / 2810.07 MB/s - RAMspeed integer
3095.08 / 3077.63 MB/s - RAMspeed floating point
106.47 / 106.38 s - C-Ray
6027.83 / 6003.55 Rps - Apache
Best regards, Manuel Krause Hi Manuel,
as I already wrote, if you are on OpenSuse (like me) or any other non Ubuntu distro, you don't need the ondemand governor patches. Ubuntu only forgot to reenable the X86_INTEL_PSTATE, which you should use for your Intel Core 2 Duo. It is much better than the other governors and handles the CPU clock speed for its own. But maybe Con could say more, if and how BFS would influence there.
PS: As you can read in Phoronix comments to the benchmark test of the better ondemand code in Linux 3.12, these is only in Ubuntu distros without X86_INTEL_PSTATE.
CU sysitos- Anonymous17 November 2013 at 09:28
Mmh, I'm not sure about the X86_INTEL_PSTATE, it is activated in my kernel .config since months. But how can I be sure, that it's active or see the difference, if not? The active driver is acpi-cpufreq, the actual governor is ondemand.
Regarding the consensus about the vm tunables, I have to say that I had ported my best-effort settings from -unicore- to my new system -dualcore-: Now seeing that Mike's (sysitos') settings are quite better for multicore systems.
4 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio (default openSUSE 12.3 @ 20)
2 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio (default -"- @ 10)
These seem to eliminate most of the A/V hickups I had with heavy swapping.
I still keep my opinion, that it'll remain a per system, per user job to adjust these for his/her own, what we don't want for linux future.
Best regards, Manuel Krause Hi Manuel,
a "ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate" should output something like that: "max_perf_pct min_perf_pct no_turbo". Than PSTATE is active.
For my vm settings I even must lower it, because writing on an USB thumb drive with ntfs3g still blocks the system.
So my /etc/sysctl.conf contains now:
vm.dirty_bytes = 209715200
vm.dirty_background_bytes = 104857600
(Btw. you can use either bytes or ratio values there)
cu sysitos
PS: Using OpenSuse 13.1 now ;)- Anonymous18 November 2013 at 05:38
Hi, Mike,
the INTEL_PSTATE appears to be not supported for my "Penryn" Core2Duo P8400, neither by hardware nor by the kernel pstate driver? Kernel doesn't tell anything even if booting with commandline added "intel_pstate=enable". But I only did a short, i.e. too long, web search that didn't provide results stating at which generation of Intel cpus this feature was implemented. I assume going from Core i3 to newer.
Btw., lowering the dirty_background_* and dirty_* in the vm would follow CK's approach until 3.7-ck1, setting both *_ratio to 1 in 'mm-decrease_default_dirty_ratio-1.patch', what he dropped since 3.8. (For my old unicore system this "=1" setup was unusable at that former times.)
I, personally, will wait some weeks for openSUSE 13.1 and the repos to mature. I had too many bad experiences in the past when upgrading openSUSEs shortly after release date.
Best regards, Manuel Krause
- Anonymous15 November 2013 at 04:42
under KDE as a normal user - i´m too lazy for something else
ReplyDelete For those who waiting bfs on 3.12, I have ported bfs-0441 to 3.12, there is 3 conflicts, but seems that are minor ones. After resolved the conflicts and build the kernel, it runs on my core2 machine.
Before ck release new version of bfs on 3.12, you can try this out.
bfs patch at
And also my patch to fix the circle dead-lock
All credit goes to ck. :)RepliesUnfortunately, this BFS port breaks resuming from hibernation for me :(. Shows nothing but blank screen and hangs.
DeleteHi Chen,
maybe I miss something, but could you please describe the advantages of your circle dead-lock patch and why it should be used.
As I see in the patch, you set the mutex_lock one time for the whole systems and not like Con for every CPU (which does mean for my i7 8x lock and unlock).
Btw, maybe you can contribute your patch to the ZEN Kernel team.
cu sysitos- Anonymous18 November 2013 at 04:07
@Mike ,
the answer Chen gave me on 2013-10-10 on this page not good enough?
Ulrich @Ulrich,
thx, "overread" it, because there is no dead lock boot warning here and googled for the wrong sentence. Thx.
CU sysitos
- Anonymous10 January 2014 at 17:46
@ graysky: I really hope to see an updated version of your report (http://repo-ck.com/bench/cpu_schedulers_compared.pdf) when bfs for 3.13 comes out :-)