Re: RFC: i386: kill !4KSTACKS

[Jan Kiszka]

2005/9/7, Giridhar Pemmasani <giri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
> > Ndiswrapper is already slower than native drivers are, also due to
> > horribly implemented Windows drivers btw (the ndis model itself isn't
> > that bad, though).
> 
> Do you have any evidence to back your claims? What tests did you do to say
> that ndiswrapper is slower than native driver? Under X86-64 there is some
> overhead due to reshuffling of arguments, but it is so little that I doubt
> if it can be measured.

Giri, I'm not attacking your project. You know I'm sharing your
pragmatic view. Performance is a pure technical issue.

Yes, I can provide some numbers around atheros devices (10-20%
speed-up). And yes, I can explain why ndiswrapper suffers from certain
differences of the NDIS driver model compared to the one of Linux
(just consider what had to be moved to tasklets). But I think this
would better be continued on the ndiswrapper list than here.

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