Thanx :) 2010/6/21 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]>
> It was I who contacted Balbir Singh (which subsequently commented > here), Tim Gardner notes on the mailing list: > > "Actually, I was messing with this feature independently this morning. I > think our initial performance impact assumptions were a bit > pessimistic." > > Does that mean that there never was a performance impact as initially > suggested, it was just assumed to exist. I.e. this was always a > non-issue. > > I'm not looking for someone to blame, just wondering if this needs to > be followed up with upstream. And whether running a kernel with > CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT=y and without nodelayacct actually has a > performance impact that users of Ubuntu might be concerned about in > some odd cases. > > Thanks. > > 1. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2010-June/011240.html > > -- > Please enable CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493156 > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber > of a duplicate bug. > -- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.- -- Please enable CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493156 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
