diff for duplicates of <5051C44B.3000707@parallels.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index efac5e8..7f0820f 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ kmemcg-slab-Set : 4.84 +- 0.35% [ - 0.78 % ] So in general, I don't see a big difference, with almost all measurements falling inside the 2-sigma range. -From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem +>From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem patches applied, but kmem not used, actually performs slightly better than no patches at all. I don't know why this is, and it might even be a glitch. But it consistently happened in my laptop and in the 6-way AMD @@ -49,3 +49,9 @@ kmemcg-slab-Set performs slightly worse. Being worse is inline with expectations, but I don't consider the hit to be too big. Please let me know of any additional work you would like to see done here. + +-- +To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in +the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, +see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . +Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a> diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index d39e807..d51181d 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,17 +1,17 @@ - "From\0Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>\0" + "From\0Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>\0" "Subject\0kmemcg benchmarks\0" "Date\0Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:32:27 +0400\0" - "To\0linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>" - Mel Gorman <mgorman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> - Andi Kleen <andi-Vw/NltI1exuRpAAqCnN02g@public.gmane.org> - Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org> - Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org> - Ying Han <yinghan-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> - Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> - linux-kernel <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org> - devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org <devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> - Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> - " James Bottomley <JBottomley-MU7nAjRaF3makBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>\0" + "To\0linux-mm@kvack.org <linux-mm@kvack.org>" + Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> + Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> + Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> + Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org> + Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> + Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> + linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> + devel@openvz.org <devel@openvz.org> + Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@parallels.com> + " James Bottomley <JBottomley@parallels.com>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "Hello everybody.\n" @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ "So in general, I don't see a big difference, with almost all\n" "measurements falling inside the 2-sigma range.\n" "\n" - "From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem\n" + ">From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem\n" "patches applied, but kmem not used, actually performs slightly better\n" "than no patches at all. I don't know why this is, and it might even be a\n" "glitch. But it consistently happened in my laptop and in the 6-way AMD\n" @@ -64,6 +64,12 @@ "kmemcg-slab-Set performs slightly worse. Being worse is inline with\n" "expectations, but I don't consider the hit to be too big.\n" "\n" - Please let me know of any additional work you would like to see done here. + "Please let me know of any additional work you would like to see done here.\n" + "\n" + "--\n" + "To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in\n" + "the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,\n" + "see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .\n" + "Don't email: <a href=mailto:\"dont@kvack.org\"> email@kvack.org </a>" -ad96a411a3a11b69314d58fb5246904557269c1ade895181bedb2f46306b74b6 +bbbddc7cb0a41350663ef414a1f9d5c538d25bd43acd000b5b94c57d4c5aeab8
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index efac5e8..88d54ee 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ kmemcg-slab-Set : 4.84 +- 0.35% [ - 0.78 % ] So in general, I don't see a big difference, with almost all measurements falling inside the 2-sigma range. -From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem +>From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem patches applied, but kmem not used, actually performs slightly better than no patches at all. I don't know why this is, and it might even be a glitch. But it consistently happened in my laptop and in the 6-way AMD diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index d39e807..427739f 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -1,17 +1,17 @@ - "From\0Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>\0" + "From\0Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>\0" "Subject\0kmemcg benchmarks\0" "Date\0Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:32:27 +0400\0" - "To\0linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>" - Mel Gorman <mgorman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> - Andi Kleen <andi-Vw/NltI1exuRpAAqCnN02g@public.gmane.org> - Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org> - Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org> - Ying Han <yinghan-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> - Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> - linux-kernel <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org> - devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org <devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> - Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> - " James Bottomley <JBottomley-MU7nAjRaF3makBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>\0" + "To\0linux-mm@kvack.org <linux-mm@kvack.org>" + Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> + Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> + Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> + Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org> + Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> + Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> + linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> + devel@openvz.org <devel@openvz.org> + Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@parallels.com> + " James Bottomley <JBottomley@parallels.com>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "Hello everybody.\n" @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ "So in general, I don't see a big difference, with almost all\n" "measurements falling inside the 2-sigma range.\n" "\n" - "From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem\n" + ">From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem\n" "patches applied, but kmem not used, actually performs slightly better\n" "than no patches at all. I don't know why this is, and it might even be a\n" "glitch. But it consistently happened in my laptop and in the 6-way AMD\n" @@ -66,4 +66,4 @@ "\n" Please let me know of any additional work you would like to see done here. -ad96a411a3a11b69314d58fb5246904557269c1ade895181bedb2f46306b74b6 +e0f65e15a628a5ea598ae388e66a5d5ccd18a4460eb76554ec3e1ddd3fbd10fb
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.