On 07/10/2013 09:52 AM, Sam Ben wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 10:36 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Sam
>>
>> On 07/07/2013 09:31 AM, Sam Ben wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2013 12:55 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by
theory,
this will bring ben
On 07/08/2013 10:36 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Sam
On 07/07/2013 09:31 AM, Sam Ben wrote:
On 07/04/2013 12:55 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by
theory,
this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
extreme pi
Hi, Sam
On 07/07/2013 09:31 AM, Sam Ben wrote:
> On 07/04/2013 12:55 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by
>> theory,
>> this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
>> extreme ping-pong case.
>
> What's the mean
On 07/04/2013 12:55 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
extreme ping-pong case.
What's the meaning of ping-pong case?
And testing show it could benefit hac
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
extreme ping-pong case.
And testing show it could benefit hackbench 15% at most.
However, the whole stuff is somewhat blindly and time-consuming, so
5 matches
Mail list logo
