On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-10-19 10:59:33 [-0700], Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Sebastian noted that overhead for worker thread ops (throughput)
accounting was producing 'perf' to appear in the profiles, consuming
a non-trivial (ie 13%) amount of CPU. This is due
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-10-19 10:59:33 [-0700], Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Sebastian noted that overhead for worker thread ops (throughput)
accounting was producing 'perf' to appear in the profiles, consuming
a non-trivial (ie 13%) amount of CPU. This is due
On 2016-10-19 10:59:33 [-0700], Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Sebastian noted that overhead for worker thread ops (throughput)
> accounting was producing 'perf' to appear in the profiles, consuming
> a non-trivial (ie 13%) amount of CPU. This is due to cacheline
> bouncing due to the increment of
On 2016-10-19 10:59:33 [-0700], Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Sebastian noted that overhead for worker thread ops (throughput)
> accounting was producing 'perf' to appear in the profiles, consuming
> a non-trivial (ie 13%) amount of CPU. This is due to cacheline
> bouncing due to the increment of
4 matches
Mail list logo