On 10/10/2017 05:39 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
>>> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
>>> will ever see any benefit from this.
>> But aren't
On 10/10/2017 05:39 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
>>> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
>>> will ever see any benefit from this.
>> But aren't
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:51:43 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-10-17 08:39:47, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> > >> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:51:43 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-10-17 08:39:47, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> > >> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion
On Tue 10-10-17 08:39:47, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> >> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
> >> will ever see any benefit from this.
> > But
On Tue 10-10-17 08:39:47, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> >> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
> >> will ever see any benefit from this.
> > But
On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
>> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
>> will ever see any benefit from this.
> But aren't those small groups who would like to squeeze every
On 10/10/2017 07:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
>> going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
>> will ever see any benefit from this.
> But aren't those small groups who would like to squeeze every
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> > going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
> > will ever see any benefit from this.
>
> But aren't those small groups who would like to squeeze
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > But, let's be honest, this leaves us with an option that nobody is ever
> > going to turn on. IOW, nobody except a very small portion of our users
> > will ever see any benefit from this.
>
> But aren't those small groups who would like to squeeze
On Tue 10-10-17 07:53:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Anyway I still stand by my position that this sounds over-engineered and
> >>> a simple 0/1 resp.
On Tue 10-10-17 07:53:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 07:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Anyway I still stand by my position that this sounds over-engineered and
> >>> a simple 0/1 resp.
On 10/10/2017 07:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Anyway I still stand by my position that this sounds over-engineered and
>>> a simple 0/1 resp. on/off interface would be both simpler and safer. If
>>>
On 10/10/2017 07:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Anyway I still stand by my position that this sounds over-engineered and
>>> a simple 0/1 resp. on/off interface would be both simpler and safer. If
>>>
On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
> >> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
> >>
On Tue 10-10-17 07:29:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
> >> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
> >>
On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
>> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
>> impossible?
> Well, after thinking about it little bit
On 10/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
>> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
>> impossible?
> Well, after thinking about it little bit
On 2017年10月10日 13:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
>> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
>> impossible?
>
> Well, after thinking about it little
On 2017年10月10日 13:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
>> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
>> impossible?
>
> Well, after thinking about it little
On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
> impossible?
Well, after thinking about it little bit more, partial reads are always
inconsistent so this
On Mon 09-10-17 09:55:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I haven't checked closely but what happens (or should happen) when you
> do a partial read? Should you get an inconsistent results? Or is this
> impossible?
Well, after thinking about it little bit more, partial reads are always
inconsistent so this
On Mon 09-10-17 14:34:11, kemi wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年10月03日 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
> >> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> >> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> >>
On Mon 09-10-17 14:34:11, kemi wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年10月03日 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
> >> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> >> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> >>
On 2017年10月03日 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>>
>>
On 2017年10月03日 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>>
>>
On 2017年09月29日 15:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>>
>>
On 2017年09月29日 15:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>>
>>
On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
On Thu 28-09-17 14:11:41, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
[+CC linux-api]
On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
[+CC linux-api]
On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
On 09/28/2017 11:29 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
>
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and
On 09/28/2017 11:29 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
>
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
> Looks
On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
On 09/28/2017 08:11 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
>
On 2017年09月29日 05:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
>
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and
On 2017年09月29日 05:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
>
>> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
>> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
>> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
>
> Looks
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
Looks OK I guess.
I fiddled with it a
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:11:41 +0800 Kemi Wang wrote:
> This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
> numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
> Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
Looks OK I guess.
I fiddled with it a lot. Please consider:
This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
=
When page allocation performance becomes a
This is the second step which introduces a tunable interface that allow
numa stats configurable for optimizing zone_statistics(), as suggested by
Dave Hansen and Ying Huang.
=
When page allocation performance becomes a
42 matches
Mail list logo