On Wed, 9 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > erm, it's not obviosu from all this that the patches are worth proceeding > with, are they? What was it? 0.5% performance improvement on a synthetic benchmark? Process wakeup I believe? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- From: "Yu, Fenghua" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
- RE: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- RE: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- From: "Yu, Fenghua" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/6] firewire: SBP-2 highlevel driver
- Next by Date: What tools to use?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Call percpu smp cacheline algin interface
- Index(es):
 |