Hello, Breno!
> Hello Vlad,
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:14:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > >
> > > > Overall it looks promising to
Hello Vlad,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:14:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >
> > > Overall it looks promising to me, but I would like to see how
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:14:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hi Boqun,
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> > Overall it looks promising to me, but I would like to see how it
> > performs in the environment of Breno. Also as Paul always reminds me:
> > buggy code
Hi Boqun,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Overall it looks promising to me, but I would like to see how it
> performs in the environment of Breno. Also as Paul always reminds me:
> buggy code usually run faster, so please take a look in case I'm missing
> something ;
Hi,
This RFC is mostly a follow-up on discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250321-lockdep-v1-1-78b732d19...@debian.org/
I found that using a hazard pointer variant can speed up the
lockdep_unregister_key(), on my system (a 96-cpu VMs), the results of:
time /usr/sbin/tc qd
5 matches
Mail list logo
