Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> We can avoid dirtying a rq related cacheline with a simple check, so why not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
> ---
> 
>  0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

I think you wanted a patch here?
-
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 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
    • From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/9] RT: RT-Overload/Sched enhancements v4
    • From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
    • From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [GIT] NFS client fixes for 2.6.23++
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] full suspend/resume support for i915 DRM driver
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 9/9] RT: Only dirty a cacheline if the priority is actually changing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]