Selon Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CSA is currently implemented as a loadable module. I think ELSA is the
> same, right? The use of the enhanced accounting data collection
> code is not in the kernel tree. That was why Andrew did not see usage of
> the accounting patches. Should i propose to
Selon Jay Lan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CSA is currently implemented as a loadable module. I think ELSA is the
same, right? The use of the enhanced accounting data collection
code is not in the kernel tree. That was why Andrew did not see usage of
the accounting patches. Should i propose to include
Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have tested Christoph's patch before the leave. It did work for CSA
> and showed performance improvement on certain configuration.
OK, thanks.
> Should i propose to include the CSA module in
> the kernel then, Andrew? :)
Sure, if such an action is
Andrew Morton wrote:
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope that Roland's changes for higher resolution of cputime would
make that possible. But this is Jay's thing not mine. I just want to make
sure that the CSA patches does not get in the way of our attempts to
improve the
Andrew Morton wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope that Roland's changes for higher resolution of cputime would
make that possible. But this is Jay's thing not mine. I just want to make
sure that the CSA patches does not get in the way of our attempts to
improve the performance
Jay Lan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tested Christoph's patch before the leave. It did work for CSA
and showed performance improvement on certain configuration.
OK, thanks.
Should i propose to include the CSA module in
the kernel then, Andrew? :)
Sure, if such an action is suitable for
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which implies that we need to see some additional accounting code, so we
> can verify that the base accumulation infrastructure is doing the expected
> thing. As well as an ack from the interested parties. Does anyone know
> what's happening with all
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Which implies that we need to see some additional accounting code, so we
can verify that the base accumulation infrastructure is doing the expected
thing. As well as an ack from the interested parties. Does anyone know
what's happening with all the
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well your patch certainly cleans things up in there and would be a good
> thing to have as long as we can be sure that it doesn't break the
> accounting in some subtle way.
I think it also fits well with the other accounting data which is only
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I hope that Roland's changes for higher resolution of cputime would
> make that possible. But this is Jay's thing not mine. I just want to make
> sure that the CSA patches does not get in the way of our attempts to
> improve the performance of the
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Has any performance testing been done?
Jay did some performance testing and found minor performance increases
without my page fault patches. But then the performance without the page
fault patches is already so bad due to the page_table_lock
contention
As requested by Andrew:
In the 2.6.11 development cycle function calls have been added to lots
of hot vm paths to do accounting. I think these should not go into the
final 2.6.1 release because these statistics can be collected in a different
way that does not require the updating of counters
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Has any performance testing been done?
Jay did some performance testing and found minor performance increases
without my page fault patches. But then the performance without the page
fault patches is already so bad due to the page_table_lock
contention
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Well your patch certainly cleans things up in there and would be a good
thing to have as long as we can be sure that it doesn't break the
accounting in some subtle way.
I think it also fits well with the other accounting data which is only
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope that Roland's changes for higher resolution of cputime would
make that possible. But this is Jay's thing not mine. I just want to make
sure that the CSA patches does not get in the way of our attempts to
improve the performance of the page
As requested by Andrew:
In the 2.6.11 development cycle function calls have been added to lots
of hot vm paths to do accounting. I think these should not go into the
final 2.6.1 release because these statistics can be collected in a different
way that does not require the updating of counters
16 matches
Mail list logo
