Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:23:03 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [profile] amortize atomic hit count increments |
| |
On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:05 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >>> Before dedicidng I'd suggest to have a look and see how the below patch >>> compares to your approch in performance terms.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:16:48AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> It looks like the 512p we have here is pretty heavily reserved this >> week, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to test this (someone else >> might, John?). I think the balance we're looking for is between >> simplicity and non-brokenness. Builtin profiling is *supposed* to be >> simple and dumb, and were it not for the readprofile times, I'd say >> per-cpu would be the way to go just because it retains the >> simplicity of the current approach while allowing it to work on >> large machines (as well as limiting the performance impact of >> builtin profiling in general). wli's approach seems like a >> reasonable tradeoff though, assuming what you suggest doesn't work.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:00:30PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Goddamn fscking short-format VHPT crap. Rusty, how the hell do I > hotplug-ize this?
Successfully tested on x86-64.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |