On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 +0200, Rik Theys wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did you find the time to run tests to find the performance cost of
> enabling the feature (disabled-by-default)?
[...]
Sorry, not yet. So far, every time I tried to do a speed test it on my
laptop the processor got hot enough that it
Hi,
Did you find the time to run tests to find the performance cost of
enabling the feature (disabled-by-default)?
Google [1] shows some low overhead patches for the memory controller,
but I don't know if they have been merged.
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/15/12
Regards,
Rik
--
Rik Th
On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 19:35 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:32:44AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > We don't want memory cgroup support to be enabled by default, due to the
> > run-time overhead. Below is a patch that allows the code to be included
> > but disabled by
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:32:44AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We don't want memory cgroup support to be enabled by default, due to the
> run-time overhead. Below is a patch that allows the code to be included
> but disabled by default. However, memory cgroup support still has some
> run-time c
We don't want memory cgroup support to be enabled by default, due to the
run-time overhead. Below is a patch that allows the code to be included
but disabled by default. However, memory cgroup support still has some
run-time cost when included but disabled, which we need to evaluate
before making
5 matches
Mail list logo
