[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread

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.

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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.111 / U:5.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site