On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 12:32:04 -0500
Sasha Levin wrote:
> Ping?
Pong?
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-huge_memory-use-new-hashtable-implementation.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 12:32:04 -0500
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
Ping?
Pong?
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-huge_memory-use-new-hashtable-implementation.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Ping?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Switch hugemem to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
> amount of generic unrelated code in the hugemem.
>
> This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The upside is that
> we save a pointer
Ping?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
Switch hugemem to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of generic unrelated code in the hugemem.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The upside is that
we save a
Switch hugemem to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of generic unrelated code in the hugemem.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The upside is that
we save a pointer dereference when accessing the hashtable, but we lose 8KB
if
Switch hugemem to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of generic unrelated code in the hugemem.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The upside is that
we save a pointer dereference when accessing the hashtable, but we lose 8KB
if
6 matches
Mail list logo