From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 14 0:46:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from titan.metropolitan.at (mail.metropolitan.at [195.212.98.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9AEB14E2E for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:46:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mladavac@metropolitan.at) Received: by TITAN with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:49:09 +0200 Message-ID: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C1100276179666@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at> From: Ladavac Marino To: "'dyson@iquest.net'" , wes@softweyr.com Cc: crossd@cs.rpi.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: High syscall overhead? Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:42:25 +0200 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -----Original Message----- > From: John S. Dyson [SMTP:dyson@iquest.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 6:58 PM > To: wes@softweyr.com > Cc: crossd@cs.rpi.edu; freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: High syscall overhead? > > Think of it like this: since alot of desktops sit in idle loops much > of the time, perhaps the Linux philosophy has been to improve such > behavior :-). > [ML] Do you remember the old anecdote about a profiled ATT unix kernel where they have found out that the kernel spends a lot of time in one loop and rewritten it in assembly--it turned out it was the IDLE loop :) /Marino To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message