Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:01:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:01:10 -0400 Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.19]:15769 "EHLO mailout06.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:01:04 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Oliver Neukum To: Thunder from the hill Subject: Re: Driverfs updates Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:05:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: Thunder from the hill , Keith Owens , Patrick Mochel , References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200207091905.28401.oliver@neukum.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 885 Lines: 26 Am Dienstag, 9. Juli 2002 13:08 schrieb Thunder from the hill: > 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? Because you unload modules rarely, but you'd take the lock millions of times in vain. Regards Oliver - 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/