> Probably only if accepted into the mainstream code.
> I really doubt you want to run a softmodem in kernel space anyway. Its
> MMX and float heavy, its large (they tend to be 200K+ code) and potentially
> at that size and for what it has to do very buggy (yes you _can_ have
> buffer overruns in soft modems 8)).
> Its probably a real time process job
Besides... That way "top" will show you just how much of a CPU
hog the modem logic is and why a "winmodem" is really a "losemodem" because
you "lose" more in CPU than you "win" in a cheap crappy piece of hardware.
Other than attempting to profile the kernel code (which I've
never done) I don't know of any other way to comparmentalize what
code is burning your CPU if it's running, say, 80% or more CPU. That
would just make Linux look bad. Make the winmodem logic run in a
real time process and then it looks bad because it's burning up the CPU,
not the kernel. Purely from support and appearances sake (why does my
Linux box run so slow?) this looks like a better way to place preformance
blame on the performance culprits.
I like that idea. :-)
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/