Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 16 2000 - 13:05:53 EST


On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> > The only disadvantage to this scheme is the added cost of a kernel
> > thread over a kernel timer. I think this is an ok cost, because this
> > is a low-impact thread that sleeps a lot..
>
> 8K of memory, two tlb flushes, cache misses on the scheduler. The price is
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> actually extremely high.

<confused>
Does it really need non-lazy TLB?

I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:10 EST