Okay I will try that too and let you know.
Thank you.
Jerome
- Original Message -
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roland Dreier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jerome Pioux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Duffy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:05 PM
Quoting r. Jerome Pioux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: FW: SDP problems with 64K page size
>
> > The best way to fix this appears to be to bump the counters up to u32 or
> > s32.
>
> Just an open question: Do you think that we could get better performance if
> we would go with u32 instead
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: FW: SDP problems with 64K page size
>
> Jerome> Just an open question: Do you think that we could get
> Jerome> better performance if we would go with u32 instead of
> Jerome> reducing the buffer to 16K?
>
> Not sure. One e
Jerome> Just an open question: Do you think that we could get
Jerome> better performance if we would go with u32 instead of
Jerome> reducing the buffer to 16K?
Not sure. One easy test you could try would be increasing 16384 to
32768 in my patch. If that works and improves performance
The best way to fix this appears to be to bump the counters up to u32 or
s32.
Just an open question: Do you think that we could get better performance if
we would go with u32 instead of reducing the buffer to 16K?
Jerome
- Original Message -
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTE
Michael> Roland, I might check in the patch that you posted to
Michael> work around this problem for 64K page users, until I have
Michael> a final fix ready. Is that OK with everyone?
Fine with me... you might want to use this patch instead (change from
min() to min_t() to avoid some
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: FW: SDP problems with 64K page size
>
> Hi, Jerome asked me to forward this on, since for some reason his
> email didn't appear when he sent it.
>
> In any case there seem to be some PAGE_SIZE dependencies in SDP.
> Libor provided a patch t
