* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [...]
>
> Also, if the goal is to pack better then we could do even better than
> that: we could create a 'struct x86_apic_ids':
>
> struct x86_apic_ids {
> u16 bios_apicid;
> u16 apicid;
> u32 logical_apicid; /* NOTE: does this really have to be
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:45:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > While one could base the code (or even share) it with pipe, I'd like it
> > to appear a different benchmark from the outside. Also I'm fairly sure
> > they have a benchmark for this. Venki started this work, it looks like
> > Andre
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:52:49AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andrew Hunter wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I have a patch (following) that modifies handling of APIC id tables,
> > > trading a small amount of space in the (NR_CPUS - nr_cpu_ids) >> 0 case
> > > for
> >
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:52:49AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Hunter wrote:
>
> > Hi, I have a patch (following) that modifies handling of APIC id tables,
> > trading a small amount of space in the (NR_CPUS - nr_cpu_ids) >> 0 case for
> > faster accesses and slightly better cache lay
* Andrew Hunter wrote:
> Hi, I have a patch (following) that modifies handling of APIC id tables,
> trading a small amount of space in the (NR_CPUS - nr_cpu_ids) >> 0 case for
> faster accesses and slightly better cache layout (as APIC ids are mostly used
> cross-cpu.) I'm not an APIC expert so
5 matches
Mail list logo