On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:27:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-07-13 18:55:33, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
On Wed 10-07-13 18:55:33, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > > Which benchmark you are using for this testing?
> > >
> >
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:20:27AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> 于 2013/7/10 8:31, Joonsoo Kim 写道:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> On
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>
On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > > > On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:20:27AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
于 2013/7/10 8:31, Joonsoo Kim 写道:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM,
On Wed 10-07-13 18:55:33, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Which benchmark you are using for this testing?
I use my own
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:27:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 10-07-13 18:55:33, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 10-07-13 09:31:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
于 2013/7/10 8:31, Joonsoo Kim 写道:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > > On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > > > On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >> On Wed
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15,
于 2013/7/10 8:31, Joonsoo Kim 写道:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > > On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>> For one page
On Thu 04-07-13 13:24:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
For one page allocation at once, this
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> > On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> [...]
>>> For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
>>> before (-5%).
>>
>> Slowing down the most used path is a no-go.
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> [...]
>> For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
>> before (-5%).
>
> Slowing down the most used path is a no-go. Where does this slow down
> come from?
I guess, it
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
> For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
> before (-5%).
Slowing down the most used path is a no-go. Where does this slow down
come from?
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
Hello.
This patchset introduces multiple pages allocation feature to buddy
allocator. Currently, there is no ability to allocate multiple pages
at once, so we should invoke single page allocation logic repeatedly.
This has some overheads like as overhead of function call with many
arguments and
Hello.
This patchset introduces multiple pages allocation feature to buddy
allocator. Currently, there is no ability to allocate multiple pages
at once, so we should invoke single page allocation logic repeatedly.
This has some overheads like as overhead of function call with many
arguments and
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
before (-5%).
Slowing down the most used path is a no-go. Where does this slow down
come from?
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
before (-5%).
Slowing down the most used path is a no-go. Where does this slow down
come from?
I guess, it might be:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
before (-5%).
Slowing down the most used path is a no-go. Where does this
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:01:43AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:51 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 07/03/2013 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-07-13 17:34:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
For one page allocation at once, this patchset makes allocator slower than
before
26 matches
Mail list logo