Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?

• Next message: Benjamin LaHaise: "[bcrl@redhat.com: [PATCH] take 2 of the tr-based current]"
• Previous message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: [patch] scheduler cache affinity improvement for 2.4 kernels"
• In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Next in thread: Keith Owens: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Reply: Keith Owens: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

 
> > Are there any speed difference between hard-linked device drivers and
> > their modular counterparts?
>
> minimal. a few instructions per IO.

Its worse on some architectures that need to pass through a trampoline
when going between kernel and module (eg ppc). Its even worse on ppc64
at the moment because we have a local TOC per module which needs to be
saved and restored.

Anton
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Benjamin LaHaise: "[bcrl@redhat.com: [PATCH] take 2 of the tr-based current]"
• Previous message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: [patch] scheduler cache affinity improvement for 2.4 kernels"
• In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Next in thread: Keith Owens: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Reply: Keith Owens: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:00:20 EST