[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1356922034-25165-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:12 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] extend synchro-test module to test spinlocks too
I wanted a synthetic test to help me understand the performance of Rik's
proposed spinlock proportional backoff patches, and the synchro-test
in andrew's mmotm tree looked like an obvious candidate to be extended,
so I ended up with the following couple patches.
I'm not sure whats' the back story with synchro-test though - they seem
to have been stuck in andrew's tree for a very long time now. Is there
any reason delaying their inclusion or is it just that nobody's been
pushing for them ?
Michel Lespinasse (2):
add spinlock test to synchro-test module
Document default load and interval values in synchro-test module
Documentation/synchro-test.txt | 4 +-
kernel/synchro-test.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--
1.7.7.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists