On 2/9/19 7:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:05:09PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> I am also planning to try Michael's
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:28:31AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.02.19 01:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:05:09PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM
On 10.02.19 01:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:05:09PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> I am also planning to try Michael's
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:05:09PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > > >> I am also planning to try Michael's suggestion of using MAX_ORDER - 1.
> > > >> However
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > >> I am also planning to try Michael's suggestion of using MAX_ORDER - 1.
> > >> However I am still thinking about a workload which I can use to test its
> > >>
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:41:55PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >> I am also planning to try Michael's suggestion of using MAX_ORDER - 1.
> >> However I am still thinking about a workload which I can use to test its
> >> effectiveness.
> > You might want to look at doing something like
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:58:47AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:50 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/19 12:43 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500,
On 2/8/19 12:58 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:50 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/19 12:43 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:50 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/19 12:43 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >>> On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
On 2/7/19 12:43 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:18:53PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:43:44AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >
> > On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:18:53PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > >> This patch enables the kernel to
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
> On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:18:53PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >> This patch enables the kernel to scan the per cpu array and
> >> compress it by removing the
On 2/5/19 3:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:18:53PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> This patch enables the kernel to scan the per cpu array and
>> compress it by removing the repetitive/re-allocated pages.
>> Once the per cpu array is completely filled with pages
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:18:53PM -0500, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> This patch enables the kernel to scan the per cpu array and
> compress it by removing the repetitive/re-allocated pages.
> Once the per cpu array is completely filled with pages in the
> buddy it wakes up the kernel per cpu
This patch enables the kernel to scan the per cpu array and
compress it by removing the repetitive/re-allocated pages.
Once the per cpu array is completely filled with pages in the
buddy it wakes up the kernel per cpu thread which re-scans the
entire per cpu array by acquiring a zone lock
16 matches
Mail list logo