Hello Jacky,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM, h.t.ja...@gmail.com
h.t.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cunsuo,
Thanks for you prompt reply.
But I'm just wondering why the other policies(such as writethrough) are
abandoned, does anyone know the architecture difference?
They are not abandoned from
Dear All,
I want to know details about TWD, MCT, MSM timer.
can any body let me know.
Thanks
___
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Try pasting the specific parts of the code you are having trouble
understanding. One cannot be spoon-fed.
On 29 May 2012 18:53, naveen yadav yad.nav...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
I want to know details about TWD, MCT, MSM timer.
can any body let me know.
Thanks
Hi,
I am working on x8_64 arch. Profiled (oprofile) Linux kernel module
and notice that whole lot of cycles are spent in copy_from_user call.
I compared same flow from kernel proper and noticed that for more data
through put cycles spent in copy_from_user are much less. Kernel
proper has 1/8
Finally got it working...
First, at the kernel source, you need to go to:
arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
to find out which interrupt vector your IRQ is mapped to (replace x86
with your architechure, but for this purpose, amd64 also falls into
x86).
Then within the kernel space (i.e.
Hi...
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Abu Rasheda rcpilot2...@gmail.com wrote:
So obviously, CPU is stalling when it is copying data and there are
more cache misses. My question is, is there a difference calling
copy_from_user from kernel proper compared to calling from LKM ?
Theoritically,
What I meant here is, there must be difference speed when you copy
onto something contigous vs non contigous. IIRC at least it will waste
some portion of L1/L2 cache.
When you say, LKM area is prepared with vmalloc is it for code /
executable you refering too ? if so will it matter for data
