[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4950ab6-c7c7-499d-d895-777a0cf4a98d@igalia.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:22:06 -0300
From: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
kernel@...ccoli.net, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Joshua Ashton <joshua@...ggi.es>,
Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>,
Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Pierre-Loup Griffais <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Zebediah Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/split_lock: Add sysctl to control the misery mode
On 10/14/22 15:20, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 14/10/2022 15:17, André Almeida wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Tested-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
>>
>> Tested on an Intel i7-1165G7 using a small benchmarking script, the
>> behavior is effectively reverted when using the sysctl option.
>>
>> Also, you might want to document this option somewhere? Maybe at
>> Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
>
> Thanks André!
>
> About documenting, it seems it's already done in the patch, right?
> Cheers,
oops, my bad :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists