OK, that makes more sense ... I'll go stare at the code some more and
see what can be done.
> Of course I'll add something to my patch such that it doesn't crash
> if cache_decay_ticks is unset. But you might be measuring wrong things
> right now if you leave cache_decay_ticks=0 as then the cache-affinity
> on NUMAQ is switched off with the vanilla O(1) and with Michael's patch.
> I want to say: you cannot evaluate the impact of Michael's patches if
> you don't fix that. This issue is independent of my patches.
OK, I'll make sure to make the tests uniform somehow to get a fair
comparison.
Thanks!
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/