On 11 January 2015 at 11:58, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> The patch wasn't intended as a bug fix, but rather is intended to be a > more refined implementation of the buffer allocator that can permit better > performance scalability testing as we move into 2015. It does have the > effect, however, of fixing a couple of reported bugs that were the result > of the previous implementation. > > I can post a repackaged version of this as v2 if that will ease getting it > reviewed for inclusion in ODP 0.8, however, it just means asking reviewers > to keep track of and apply multiple patches instead of one patch. > I think it is worth it, as Ciprian found out with the big buffer patch we had impacted our ability to use bisect to narrow down an issue. > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Shmulik Ladkani < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:51:28 -0600 Bill Fischofer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Because in the presence of local buffer caching it is not clear whether >> > lockless or lock-based allocation will scale better, this patch adds >> > compile-time support for selecting which sychronization mechanism to >> use. >> > By default lockless allocation is used. To enable lock-based allocation >> > change the USE_BUFFER_POOL_LOCKS define to 1. >> >> Thanks. >> >> May I suggest splitting this as a patch set? >> Introducing USE_BUFFER_POOL_LOCKS seems independent of the actual bug >> fix. >> >> Regards, >> Shmulik >> > > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
