> > It has to bang on the parallel port controller the hard way, there is no
> > useful hardware support on a basic parallel port for the kind of abuse needed
> > for PLIP
> >
> (sorry for the late reply)
> I used plip with kernel 1.2.8 and had no problem with it...The machines
> that I'm using
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I have a question - Why does the PLIP driver does consume so much CPU ?
> > I tried it today, and when i did ping -s 16000 dst_ip, the kernel consumed
> > about 50% of the CPU time ( /proc/cpuinfo and /proc/interrupts follow).
> > Any ideas ?
>
> It
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
I have a question - Why does the PLIP driver does consume so much CPU ?
I tried it today, and when i did ping -s 16000 dst_ip, the kernel consumed
about 50% of the CPU time ( /proc/cpuinfo and /proc/interrupts follow).
Any ideas ?
It has to
It has to bang on the parallel port controller the hard way, there is no
useful hardware support on a basic parallel port for the kind of abuse needed
for PLIP
(sorry for the late reply)
I used plip with kernel 1.2.8 and had no problem with it...The machines
that I'm using now are
> I have a question - Why does the PLIP driver does consume so much CPU ?
> I tried it today, and when i did ping -s 16000 dst_ip, the kernel consumed
> about 50% of the CPU time ( /proc/cpuinfo and /proc/interrupts follow).
> Any ideas ?
It has to bang on the parallel port controller the hard
I have a question - Why does the PLIP driver does consume so much CPU ?
I tried it today, and when i did ping -s 16000 dst_ip, the kernel consumed
about 50% of the CPU time ( /proc/cpuinfo and /proc/interrupts follow).
Any ideas ?
It has to bang on the parallel port controller the hard
6 matches
Mail list logo
