On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 06:04:00PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:51:21AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> The patch is just extremely marginal. Ah well... why not? I'll apply
>> it once -rc1 drops.
>
>So, I was about to apply this patch but decided against it. It
>doesn
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:51:21AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The patch is just extremely marginal. Ah well... why not? I'll apply
> it once -rc1 drops.
So, I was about to apply this patch but decided against it. It
doesn't really make anything better and the code looks worse
afterwards.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:51:21AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:00:56AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> What do you think about this one?
>>
>> >
>> >From bd70498b9df47b25ff20054e24bb510c5430c0c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >From: Wei Yang
>> >Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:00:56AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> What do you think about this one?
>
> >
> >From bd70498b9df47b25ff20054e24bb510c5430c0c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Wei Yang
> >Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:42:14 +0800
> >Subject: [PATCH] percpu: optimize group assignment wh
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:17:46PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:31:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:00:55AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> >Does this actually matter? If so, it'd probably make a lot more sense
>>> >to start inner loop at @cpu
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:31:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:00:55AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >Does this actually matter? If so, it'd probably make a lot more sense
>> >to start inner loop at @cpu + 1 so that it becomes O(N).
>>
>> One of the worst case in my
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:00:55AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> >Does this actually matter? If so, it'd probably make a lot more sense
> >to start inner loop at @cpu + 1 so that it becomes O(N).
>
> One of the worst case in my mind:
>
> CPU:01234...
> Group:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:30:08AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:58:11PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> When a cpu belongs to a new group, there is no cpu has the same group id.
>> This
>> means it can be assigned a new group id without checking with every others.
>>
>> This patc
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:58:11PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> When a cpu belongs to a new group, there is no cpu has the same group id. This
> means it can be assigned a new group id without checking with every others.
>
> This patch does this optimiztion.
Does this actually matter? If so, it'd pr
9 matches
Mail list logo
