On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:53:02PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
> >
> > Try Lukas's patch, it should provide equivalent speedups.
>
> It does. Still, I don't think it'll solve memory allocation problems on
> resume,
> and the hugang's patch has such a potential.
>
If your only wannt
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 15:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
> > > sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
> >
> >
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 15:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
> > > sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
> >
> >
Hi!
> > > > > > Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version
> > > > > > of it anywhere,
> > > > > > or an alternative?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not machine,
> > > > > So
> > > > > Need someone test it.
> >
Hi,
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 22:51, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of
> > > > > it anywhere,
> > > > > or an alternative?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not
Hi,
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 22:51, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of
it anywhere,
or an alternative?
Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not machine, So
Need someone test
Hi!
Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version
of it anywhere,
or an alternative?
Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not machine,
So
Need someone test it.
OK, I will.
I have tested it and
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 15:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
Could you,
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 15:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
Could you,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:53:02PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Try Lukas's patch, it should provide equivalent speedups.
It does. Still, I don't think it'll solve memory allocation problems on
resume,
and the hugang's patch has such a potential.
If your only wannt fix memory
Hi!
> > > > Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of
> > > > it anywhere,
> > > > or an alternative?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not machine, So
> > > Need someone test it.
> >
> > OK, I will.
>
> I have tested it
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
> > sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
>
> Could you, please, make a patch against -rc1-mm1 with your previous patch
>
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 06:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
> > > > > > -> 2005-1-14.core.diff core patch TEST PASSED
> > > > > > -> 2005-1-14.x86_64.diff x86_64
On Sunday, 16 of January 2005 06:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
2.6.11-rc1-mm1
- 2005-1-14.core.diff core patch TEST PASSED
- 2005-1-14.x86_64.diff x86_64 patchNOT TESTED
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I disable Flush TLB after copy page, It speedup the in qemu, But I can't
sure the right thing in real machine, can someone give me point.
Could you, please, make a patch against -rc1-mm1 with your previous patch
applied?
Hi!
Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of
it anywhere,
or an alternative?
Ok, Here is a new patch with x86_64 support, But I have not machine, So
Need someone test it.
OK, I will.
I have tested it and it works well. For me, it
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
> > > > > -> 2005-1-14.core.diff core patch TEST PASSED
> > > > > -> 2005-1-14.x86_64.diffx86_64 patchNOT TESTED
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, on x86_64 it goes
On Friday, 14 of January 2005 18:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of January 2005 15:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:09:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of
On Friday, 14 of January 2005 18:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of January 2005 15:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:09:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Has this patch been ported to x86_64? Or is there a newer version of it
anywhere,
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
2.6.11-rc1-mm1
- 2005-1-14.core.diff core patch TEST PASSED
- 2005-1-14.x86_64.diffx86_64 patchNOT TESTED
Unfortunately, on x86_64 it goes south on suspend, probably
20 matches
Mail list logo
