Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread

[Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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...