On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 00:15 -0600, Rodney Gordon II wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > mdew . writes:
> >
> > > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> > >> interactivity.
> > >> It
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> mdew . writes:
>
> > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> >> interactivity.
> >> It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at
>
On Sunday 18 February 2007 13:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
> mdew . writes:
> > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> >> interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
> >> patch is aimed at the
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, they were. Now, it's an extremely
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> ...
> > But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
> > has an on-off switch.
> >
>
> ...
>
> Do you still want this patch for mainline?...
On 2/17/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
> > Plus they worry incessantly that my
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
> > Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious
> > machines'
Con Kolivas wrote:
> Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. Plus
> they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious machines'
> performance...
>
But the one I like,
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
>
> I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
> see, this
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves. Plus
they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious machines'
performance...
But the one I like,
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those precious
machines' performance...
On 2/17/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
Plus they worry incessantly that my patches
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
...
But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
has an on-off switch.
...
Do you still want this patch for mainline?...
Don't think so.
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, they were. Now, it's an extremely
On Sunday 18 February 2007 13:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck
patch is aimed at the desktop and -cks
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at
the
desktop
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 00:15 -0600, Rodney Gordon II wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
interactivity.
It is configurable to
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
>
> I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
> see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
if I'm wrong.)
Has anyone tried booting a kernel with
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
if I'm wrong.)
Has anyone tried booting a kernel with the
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
see, this has never been suggested... (someone please do enlighten me
22 matches
Mail list logo
