Hi Martin and Michael,
thanks for testing again!
On Thursday 16 January 2003 07:05, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> I'm not keen on the way the minisched patch got reformatted. I changed
> it into a seperate function, which I think is much cleaner by the time
> you've added the third patch - no #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA in load_balance.
Fine. This form is also nearer to the codingstyle rule: "functions
should do only one thing" (I'm reading those more carefully now ;-)
> Anyway, I perf tested this, and it comes out more or less the same as
> the tuned version I was poking at last night (ie best of the bunch).
> Looks pretty good to me.
Great!
> PS. The fourth patch was so small, and touching the same stuff as 3
> that I rolled it into the third one here. Seems like a universal
> benefit ;-)
Yes, it's a much smaller step than patch #5. It would make sense to
have this included right from the start.
Regards,
Erich
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:13 EST