Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:05:53 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: 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.
<confused> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |