Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 04:48 +0200, Roel Kluin wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why > > not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > > > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > I think you wanted a patch here? Hi Roel, I had forgotten to refresh before mailing the patches, but I sent an immediate followup (which unfortunately was not linked to the original posting. For your reference, here is the reposting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.rt.user/1626 Sorry for the confusion! Regards, -Greg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
-- On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Roel Kluin wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why > > not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > > > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > I think you wanted a patch here? > But it is here. Gregory is a Zen master, and this patch does exactly what he wanted it to do. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
-- On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Roel Kluin wrote: Gregory Haskins wrote: We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) I think you wanted a patch here? But it is here. Gregory is a Zen master, and this patch does exactly what he wanted it to do. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 04:48 +0200, Roel Kluin wrote: Gregory Haskins wrote: We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) I think you wanted a patch here? Hi Roel, I had forgotten to refresh before mailing the patches, but I sent an immediate followup (which unfortunately was not linked to the original posting. For your reference, here is the reposting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.rt.user/1626 Sorry for the confusion! Regards, -Greg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
Gregory Haskins wrote: > We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > > 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) I think you wanted a patch here? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
Gregory Haskins wrote: We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) I think you wanted a patch here? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
