On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 09:06:20PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> Keeping fragmentation of zsmalloc in a low level is our target. But now
> we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc to get the quantitative data.
>
> This patch adds a new configuration CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT to enable the
>
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 09:06:20PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Keeping fragmentation of zsmalloc in a low level is our target. But now
we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc to get the quantitative data.
This patch adds a new configuration CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT to enable the
Keeping fragmentation of zsmalloc in a low level is our target. But now
we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc to get the quantitative data.
This patch adds a new configuration CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT to enable the
statistics collection for developers. Currently only the objects statatitics
Keeping fragmentation of zsmalloc in a low level is our target. But now
we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc to get the quantitative data.
This patch adds a new configuration CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT to enable the
statistics collection for developers. Currently only the objects statatitics
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:49:29AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> 2014-12-19 9:30 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> >> Hello, Minchan
> >>
> >> 2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> >> > Hello Ganesh,
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 17,
2014-12-19 9:30 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
>> Hello, Minchan
>>
>> 2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
>> > Hello Ganesh,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
>> >> Hello, Minchan
>> >>
>>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> Hello, Minchan
>
> 2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> > Hello Ganesh,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> >> Hello, Minchan
> >>
> >> Thanks for your review.
> >>
> >> 2014-12-16
Hello, Minchan
2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> Hello Ganesh,
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
>> Hello, Minchan
>>
>> Thanks for your review.
>>
>> 2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
>> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh
Hello Ganesh,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> Hello, Minchan
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> 2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> >> As a ram based memory allocator, keep the
Hello Ganesh,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
Thanks for your review.
2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
As a ram based memory allocator, keep the
Hello, Minchan
2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
Hello Ganesh,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
Thanks for your review.
2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
Hello Ganesh,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
Thanks for your review.
2014-12-16 10:45
2014-12-19 9:30 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
Hello Ganesh,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:05:19PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:49:29AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
2014-12-19 9:30 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:21:52AM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
Hello, Minchan
2014-12-19 7:44 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
Hello Ganesh,
On
Hello, Minchan
Thanks for your review.
2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim :
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
>> As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
>
> Just say, zsmalloc.
Ok.
>
>> is our target. But now we still need to
Hello, Minchan
Thanks for your review.
2014-12-16 10:45 GMT+08:00 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
Just say, zsmalloc.
Ok.
is our target. But now we
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
Just say, zsmalloc.
> is our target. But now we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc
> to get the quantitative data.
>
> After the RFC patch [1],
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0800, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
Just say, zsmalloc.
is our target. But now we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc
to get the quantitative data.
After the RFC patch [1], Minchan
As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
is our target. But now we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc
to get the quantitative data.
After the RFC patch [1], Minchan Kim gave some suggestions.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5469301/
This patch
As a ram based memory allocator, keep the fragmentation in a low level
is our target. But now we still need to add the debug code in zsmalloc
to get the quantitative data.
After the RFC patch [1], Minchan Kim gave some suggestions.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5469301/
This patch
20 matches
Mail list logo
