On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Dann Frazier wrote:
> We've measured significant performance improvements for several
> benchmarks by using 64K pages (SPECint, sysbench mysql, and kernel
> compiling)[*]. I'd therefore like to discuss whether or not we should
> switch to 64K pages in vivid
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Dann Frazier wrote:
>>
>> There's the question of whether or not we would be penalizing the
>> performance of other classes of workloads people want to run on arm64.
>> If there are some representative
buntu
Kernel Team"
Cc: "Adam Conrad"
Subject: [RFC] CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y for vivid?
We've measured significant performance improvements for several
benchmarks by using 64K pages (SPECint, sysbench mysql, and kernel
compiling)[*]. I'd therefore like to discuss whether
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Dann Frazier wrote:
>
> There's the question of whether or not we would be penalizing the
> performance of other classes of workloads people want to run on arm64.
> If there are some representative tests we should be looking at, please
> let me know.
So,
We've measured significant performance improvements for several
benchmarks by using 64K pages (SPECint, sysbench mysql, and kernel
compiling)[*]. I'd therefore like to discuss whether or not we should
switch to 64K pages in vivid.
There's the question of whether or not we would be penalizing the
p
