On 6/2/20 4:25 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 02.06.20 um 16:13 schrieb Nirmoy:
Hi Christian,
On 6/2/20 2:47 PM, Christian König wrote:
Nirmoy please keep in mind that your current implementation doesn't
fully solve the issue the test case is exercising.
In other words what you have implemen
Am 02.06.20 um 16:13 schrieb Nirmoy:
Hi Christian,
On 6/2/20 2:47 PM, Christian König wrote:
Nirmoy please keep in mind that your current implementation doesn't
fully solve the issue the test case is exercising.
In other words what you have implement is fast skipping of fragmented
address sp
Hi Christian,
On 6/2/20 2:47 PM, Christian König wrote:
Nirmoy please keep in mind that your current implementation doesn't
fully solve the issue the test case is exercising.
In other words what you have implement is fast skipping of fragmented
address space for bottom-up and top-down.
But
Nirmoy please keep in mind that your current implementation doesn't
fully solve the issue the test case is exercising.
In other words what you have implement is fast skipping of fragmented
address space for bottom-up and top-down.
But what this test here exercises is the fast skipping of alig
On 5/29/20 5:52 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Nirmoy (2020-05-29 16:40:53)
This works correctly most of the times but sometimes
I have to take my word back. In another machine, 20k insertions in
best mode takes 6-9 times more than 10k insertions, all most all the time.
evict, bottom-up
Quoting Nirmoy (2020-05-29 16:40:53)
> This works correctly most of the times but sometimes
>
> 20k insertions can take more than 8 times of 10k insertion time.
The pressure is on to improve then :)
> Regards,
>
> Nirmoy
>
> On 5/29/20 6:33 PM, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> > This patch introduces fragm
This works correctly most of the times but sometimes
20k insertions can take more than 8 times of 10k insertion time.
Regards,
Nirmoy
On 5/29/20 6:33 PM, Nirmoy Das wrote:
This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
and measures time taken by 10k and 20k insertions. ig_frag()
wi
