From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Jun  1 22:31:19 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from sharmas.dhs.org (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F4737B7EC
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 Jun 2000 22:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org)
Received: (from adsharma@localhost)
	by sharmas.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17489
	for arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:31:02 -0700
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:31:01 -0700
From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org>
To: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware
Message-ID: <20000601223101.A17391@sharmas.dhs.org>
References: <200005250208.TAA78220@apollo.backplane.com> <82645.959243483@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
In-Reply-To: <82645.959243483@localhost>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:31:23AM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:31:23AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> >     On intel anyway, subroutine calls are *cheap*, especially compared
> >     to the overhead of a locked instruction or even an L1 cache miss.
> 
> I don't believe this is true on all the architectures FreeBSD is
> anticipated to run on in the "near future", however.

And self modifying code also isn't exactly cheap either on that
architecture.

	-Arun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message