On Thu, Mar 05 2015, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 08:03:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 16:22 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> >> > I'm assuming the underwhelming response means NAK. >> >> Dunno why you assume that, sometimes it just takes >> awhile for people to look at non-critical, infrequent >> optimization changes like this.
Well, when nobody has responded within a week with even a "not obviously insane, I'll look at it after -rcN/next full moon/...", there's usually little hope of ever getting some feedback. >> Seems sensible enough to me though. > > I'd like to see how this actually affects larger operations - sth > along the line of top consumes D% less CPU cycles w/ N processes - if > for nothing else, just to get the sense of scale, That makes sense. I'll see if I can get some reproducible numbers, but I'm afraid the effect drowns in all the syscall overhead. Which would be a valid argument against touching the code. > I haven't studied the code but looks sensible enough on a glance, so, > FWIW, > > Looks-sensible-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> Thanks, this was the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Rasmus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
