Re: [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork

Rick Lindsley wrote: There is little help we get from userspace, and i'm not sure we want to add scheduler overhead for this single benchmark - when something like a _tiny_ bit of NUMAlib use within the OpenMP library would probably solve things equally well! There's has been a gene

Re: [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork

There is little help we get from userspace, and i'm not sure we want to add scheduler overhead for this single benchmark - when something like a _tiny_ bit of NUMAlib use within the OpenMP library would probably solve things equally well! There's has been a general problem with sch

Re: [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [PATCH 11/13] sched-domains aware balance-on-fork [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork [PATCH 13/13] basic tuning STREAMS numbers tricky. It's pretty much the only benchmark that 1) relies on being able to allocate

Re: [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork

* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [PATCH 11/13] sched-domains aware balance-on-fork > [PATCH 12/13] schedstats additions for sched-balance-fork > [PATCH 13/13] basic tuning STREAMS numbers tricky. It's pretty much the only benchmark that 1) relies on being able to allocate alot of R