| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Garzik) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:59:58 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200011102129.QAA13369@havoc.gtf.org> from "Jeff Garzik" at Nov 10, 2000 04:29:51 PM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> 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. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Neighbour Table Overflow, Mark Spencer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread, Alexander Viro |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread, Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread, Alexander Viro |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |