On 05/07/2012 04:53 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> Is the improvement so low, because PLE is interfering with the patch, or >> because PLE already does a good job? >> > > > It is because PLE already does a good job (of not burning cpu). The > 1-3% improvement is because, patchset knows atleast who is next to hold > lock, which is lacking in PLE. > Not good. Solving a problem in software that is already solved by hardware? It's okay if there are no costs involved, but here we're introducing a new ABI that we'll have to maintain for a long time. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
