|To:||Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: PATCH: 8139too kernel thread|
|From:||Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:05:53 -0500 (EST)|
|Cc:||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx|
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...
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|