[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: mmap() versus read()
On Mon, Mar 09, 1998 at 01:46:14PM -0800, Perry Harrington wrote:
> I still count in clock ticks. 35000 something IIRC last time I knew
> for a fork()/clone(). Context switches are somewhat costly from what I've
> heard too. FWIW, I have a P233MMX now, upgraded from a 486-120, the
> cxtx switch on an x86 is much faster than other machines (from what I've
> seen), probably from the TSS and builtin intel hacks. What and where are
> you getting ~20usec? Anything will be fast on a 200mhz PPro, doesn't mean
> that your 486-66 is going to rip Win95 a new ***hole.

I've always been unable to understand the utility of kernel threads:
perhaps you can explain it.

> Pardon me if I seem a little confrontational, I'm not the only one who
> sees clone() as costly. Also, compare these to Solaris thread creation

Rob Pike pointed out that the solution to slow process creation is
faster process creation, not another kernel abstraction.

Victor Yodaiken
Department of Computer Science
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Socorro NM 87801
PowerPC Linux page
Real-Time Page

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.076 / U:4.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site