On 04/08/2013 12:08 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (4/8/13 1:16 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
>> On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> (4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu
pagesets
we're unneededly
On 04/06/2013 06:32 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Cody,
On 04/06/2013 04:33 AM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu
pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another
we don't have any
syncronization at all (patch
(4/8/13 1:16 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> (4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
>>> In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu
>>> pagesets
>>> we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we
On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
>> In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu pagesets
>> we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we
>> don't have any
>> syncronization at all (patch
On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another we
don't have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
This
(4/8/13 1:16 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu
pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another we
don't have any
On 04/06/2013 06:32 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Cody,
On 04/06/2013 04:33 AM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu
pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another
we don't have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
On 04/08/2013 12:08 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(4/8/13 1:16 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu
pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine()
(4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
> In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu pagesets
> we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we
> don't have any
> syncronization at all (patch 3).
>
> This patchset fixes both of them.
>
> Note
(4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another we
don't have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
This patchset fixes both of them.
Note that it
Hi Cody,
On 04/06/2013 04:33 AM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we don't
have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
Do you mean stop_machine() is used for
Hi Cody,
On 04/06/2013 04:33 AM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another we don't
have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
Do you mean stop_machine() is used for
In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we don't
have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
This patchset fixes both of them.
Note that it results in a change to the behavior of
In one case while modifying the -high and -batch fields of per cpu pagesets
we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 2), and in another we don't
have any
syncronization at all (patch 3).
This patchset fixes both of them.
Note that it results in a change to the behavior of
14 matches
Mail list logo
