From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu May 25  1:29:36 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6DA37BA6C
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from localhost (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA82648;
	Thu, 25 May 2000 01:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>,
	Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 May 2000 19:08:00 PDT."
             <200005250208.TAA78220@apollo.backplane.com> 
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 01:31:23 -0700
Message-ID: <82645.959243483@localhost>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>     On intel anyway, subroutine calls are *cheap*, especially compared
>     to the overhead of a locked instruction or even an L1 cache miss.

I don't believe this is true on all the architectures FreeBSD is
anticipated to run on in the "near future", however.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message