Re: Can context switches be faster?

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 14:25 -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
> 
> 
>>   - Does the current code act on these behaviors, or just flush all
>>     cache regardless?
> 
> the cache flushing is a per architecture property. On x86, the cache
> flushing isn't needed; but a TLB flush is. Depending on your hardware
> that can be expensive as well. 
> 

So, that is needed for a full process context switch to another process.
 Is the context switch between threads quicker as it should not need to
flush the TLB?

James

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

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Can context switches be faster?
    • From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Can context switches be faster?
    • From: John Richard Moser <[email protected]>
  • Re: Can context switches be faster?
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>
  • Re: Can context switches be faster?
    • From: John Richard Moser <[email protected]>
  • Re: Can context switches be faster?
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hardware bug or kernel bug?
• Next by Date: [PATCH] drivers/char/riscom8.c: save_flags()/cli()/sti() removal
• Previous by thread: Re: Can context switches be faster?
• Next by thread: Re: Can context switches be faster?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]