On 2016/10/14 8:33, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:49:44AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
>> the main intent of this change is making the CPU grouping algorithm more
>> easily to understand, especially, for newcomer for memory managements
>> take me as a example, i really take
On 2016/10/14 8:33, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:49:44AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
>> the main intent of this change is making the CPU grouping algorithm more
>> easily to understand, especially, for newcomer for memory managements
>> take me as a example, i really take
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:49:44AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> the main intent of this change is making the CPU grouping algorithm more
> easily to understand, especially, for newcomer for memory managements
> take me as a example, i really take me a longer timer to understand it
If the new
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:49:44AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> the main intent of this change is making the CPU grouping algorithm more
> easily to understand, especially, for newcomer for memory managements
> take me as a example, i really take me a longer timer to understand it
If the new
On 2016/10/14 7:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Zijun.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:48:45PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
>> compared with the original algorithm theoretically and practically, the
>> new one educes the same grouping results, besides, it is more effective,
>> simpler and easier to
On 2016/10/14 7:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Zijun.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:48:45PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
>> compared with the original algorithm theoretically and practically, the
>> new one educes the same grouping results, besides, it is more effective,
>> simpler and easier to
Hello, Zijun.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:48:45PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> compared with the original algorithm theoretically and practically, the
> new one educes the same grouping results, besides, it is more effective,
> simpler and easier to understand.
If the original code wasn't broken and
Hello, Zijun.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:48:45PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> compared with the original algorithm theoretically and practically, the
> new one educes the same grouping results, besides, it is more effective,
> simpler and easier to understand.
If the original code wasn't broken and
On 2016/10/11 20:48, zijun_hu wrote:
> From: zijun_hu
> in order to verify the new algorithm, we enumerate many pairs of type
> @pcpu_fc_cpu_distance_fn_t function and the relevant CPU IDs array such
> below sample, then apply both algorithms to the same pair and print the
>
On 2016/10/11 20:48, zijun_hu wrote:
> From: zijun_hu
> in order to verify the new algorithm, we enumerate many pairs of type
> @pcpu_fc_cpu_distance_fn_t function and the relevant CPU IDs array such
> below sample, then apply both algorithms to the same pair and print the
> grouping results
From: zijun_hu
pcpu_build_alloc_info() groups CPUs according to relevant proximity
together to allocate memory for each percpu unit based on group.
however, the grouping algorithm consists of three loops and a goto
statement actually, and is inefficient and difficult to
From: zijun_hu
pcpu_build_alloc_info() groups CPUs according to relevant proximity
together to allocate memory for each percpu unit based on group.
however, the grouping algorithm consists of three loops and a goto
statement actually, and is inefficient and difficult to understand
the original
12 matches
Mail list logo