Paul Menage wrote:
> On 5/24/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> >> Where do we stand on all of this now anyway? I was thinking of
>> getting Paul's
>> >> changes into -mm soon, see what sort of calamities that brings about.
>> > I think we can merge Paul's pat
On 5/24/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> Where do we stand on all of this now anyway? I was thinking of getting
Paul's
>> changes into -mm soon, see what sort of calamities that brings about.
> I think we can merge Paul's patches with *interfaces* and then s
Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> Where do we stand on all of this now anyway? I was thinking of getting
>> Paul's
>> changes into -mm soon, see what sort of calamities that brings about.
> I think we can merge Paul's patches with *interfaces* and then switch to
> developing/reviewing/commiting resource
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530
> Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process
>>of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know
>>what you think of the results? Woul
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 09:37 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> oops! I wonder if AIM7 creates too many processes and exhausts all
>> memory. I've seen a case where during an upgrade of my tetex on my
>> laptop, the setup process failed and continued to fork processes
>> filling up 4GB of swap.
On Mon,
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 09:37 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Balbir Singh wrote:
> >
> >> A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the
> >> process
> >> of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me
> >> know
> >> what you think o
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>> A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the
>> process
>> of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me
>> know
>> what you think of the results? Would you like to see different
>> benchmarks/
>> tests/
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530
> Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process
>> of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know
>> what you think of the results? Woul
Balbir Singh wrote:
A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process
of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know
what you think of the results? Would you like to see different benchmarks/
tests/configuration results?
AIM7 results might
On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process
> of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know
> what you think of the results? Would you like to see different be
Hi, Pavel/Andrew,
I've run lmbench on RSS controller v2 with the following patches
applied
rss-fix-free-of-active-pages.patch
rss-fix-nodescan.patch
rss-implement-per-container-page-referenced.patch
rss-fix-lru-race
(NOTE: all of these were posted on lkml)
I've used three configurations for tes
11 matches
Mail list logo
