On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:12:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
> the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
> improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
> This too is not as effi
Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
This too is not as efficient as one would desire. A compromise would be
to allocate a single
Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
This too is not as efficient as one would desire. A compromise would be
to allocate a single
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:20:24AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
> the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
> improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
> This too is not as effi
Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
This too is not as efficient as one would desire. A compromise is then
to allocate a single p
