Re: GGI Project Unhappy On Linux

Chris Evans (chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:32:57 +0100 (BST)


On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Alan Cox wrote:

> Moving some of the low level support doesn't change the stability per se,
> but it does give you more control over things and especially over
> abitration. The problem is there is a penalty for that. A syscall costs time
> and you have to really get the syscall count down to sane levels. A fast
> graphics card can plot a line in less time than a syscall takes, so it
> is a real hard issue

Initially if we just aimed for mode switching in the kernel, maybe. Mode
switching is very infrequent, and certainly not time critical. No-one is
going to notice the extra overhead of an ioctl().

But yes if accel requests get handled by the kernel we need to coalesce
requests in userspace and transfer multiple commands to kernel space per
syscall.

Chris

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu