On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:04:11PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 18:21 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > OK, here is this patch again. You didn't think I'd let a 2% performance
> > improvement be forgotten? :)
> >
> > Anyway, patch won't work well on architecture without
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 18:21 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, here is this patch again. You didn't think I'd let a 2% performance
> improvement be forgotten? :)
>
> Anyway, patch won't work well on architecture without lwsync, but I won't
> bother fixing that kind of thing and making it merge worthy
OK, here is this patch again. You didn't think I'd let a 2% performance
improvement be forgotten? :)
Anyway, patch won't work well on architecture without lwsync, but I won't
bother fixing that kind of thing and making it merge worthy until you
guys say something positive about it.
20 runs of tbe
