Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:05:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:05:33 -0400 Received: from pD9E238F8.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.226.56.248]:4574 "EHLO hawkeye.luckynet.adm") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:05:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 05:08:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Thunder from the hill X-X-Sender: thunder@hawkeye.luckynet.adm To: Oliver Neukum cc: Thunder from the hill , Keith Owens , Patrick Mochel , Subject: Re: Driverfs updates In-Reply-To: <200207091030.17096.oliver@neukum.name> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1020 Lines: 29 Hi, On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Oliver Neukum wrote: > -It is slow. I wouldn't call it any fast when I think about the idea that 31 of my CPUs on Hawkeye shall be stopped because I unload a module. Sometimes at high noon my server (Hawkeye) can hardly keep up all the traffic. Just imagine a module would be unloaded then! That's the problem I'm having with it. What should make a lock for parts of the kernel slower than a lock for the _whole_ kernel? Regards, Thunder -- (Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode) ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Version: 3.12 GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$ N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G e++++ h* r--- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - 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/