On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 14:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:20:39 EST, john stultz said:
> > I didn't hear any objections (or really, any comments) on my
> > last release, so as I mentioned then, I want to go ahead and push this
> > to Andrew for a bit of testing in -mm
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:20:39 EST, john stultz said:
> I didn't hear any objections (or really, any comments) on my
> last release, so as I mentioned then, I want to go ahead and push this
> to Andrew for a bit of testing in -mm. Hopefully targeting for
> inclusion in 2.6.21 or 2.6.22.
Am
Andrew, Andi,
I didn't hear any objections (or really, any comments) on my
last release, so as I mentioned then, I want to go ahead and push this
to Andrew for a bit of testing in -mm. Hopefully targeting for
inclusion in 2.6.21 or 2.6.22.
Here's the performance data from the last rele
Hey Andi,
First let me apologize, I've been busy with other things and
its been far too long since I last posted this. Anyway, I found some
time to resync my trees and wanted to send this along.
You had asked earlier about performance impact:
Vanilla TSC:
149 nsecs per gtod call
367 nse
4 matches
Mail list logo
