forcing a double fault is one of the methods used in kernel testing
:-) to ensure smooth recovery after a crash!
as is listed here...
look at helix comunity mailing list archive for those words...
--
__
Pune GNU/Linux Users Grou
Hello
Sorry, i am a bit late and slightly off topic. Floating points have
one slight issue wrt precision, for details check-out :
http://www.wrcad.com/linux_numerics.txt and
http://www.validlab.com/goldberg/paper.ps
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 14:58 +0530, ಓಂ wrote:
> There are always reasons why wi
hope this does not repeat what somebody else may have already said or
is already known.. in that case feel free to ignore
This also may need amendment but here is what i has heard long time back..
logic required to implement a floating point arithmetic mechanism is
complex than that required for p
?
On 10/23/07, ಓಂ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are always reasons why wise people do not want to take shortcuts
> :-) even when they are readily available. That may be fitting this
> situation...
>
> --
> __
> Pune GNU/Li
There are always reasons why wise people do not want to take shortcuts
:-) even when they are readily available. That may be fitting this
situation...
--
__
Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: (plug-mail@plug.org.in)
Li
> Related question - is there any place in the kernel where we really miss
> FPU
> functionality ?
> For eg. would we have better load average calculations if the kernel used
> the FPU ?
> Just a thought...
Do we miss it ? No ! We could always use a bunch of integers and a taylor
series instead ;
Related question - is there any place in the kernel where we really miss FPU
functionality ?
For eg. would we have better load average calculations if the kernel used
the FPU ?
Just a thought...
Best regards,
Pranav
--
No amo
Sadly, there is no way to define the state of the floating point unit in the
kernel. Also, the presence of an FPU is not an assumption you want to make.
Lastly, it is a headache to keep a track of where you can use and FPU and
where you cannot (Yes, you can use a global lock, but why incur that
ove
Hi,
--- Ashutosh Adkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anybody please tell me the reason
> as to why floating point
> arithmetic is not very convinient in kernel code as
> against user code?
Latency is not accepted in kernel code:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg07127.html
SK
On Saturday 18 Aug 2007 20:08:12 Shantanoo Mahajan wrote:
> Integer calculations are much more faster than floating point
> calculations.
> Generally, integer calculations are necessary and sufficient for the
> things
> done in kernel code. But if you really required floating point, you
> can alway
On 18-Aug-07, at 7:16 PM, Ashutosh Adkar wrote:
Hi,
Can anybody please tell me the reason as to why
floating point
arithmetic is not very convinient in kernel code as against user code?
<>
Did you watch 'Matrix' movie?
Integer calculations are much more faster than floating
On 8/18/07, Ashutosh Adkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anybody please tell me the reason as to why floating point
> arithmetic is not very convinient in kernel code as against user code?
Its mostly for efficiency reasons.
-aditya
--
___
Hi,
Can anybody please tell me the reason as to why floating point
arithmetic is not very convinient in kernel code as against user code?
--
Regards,
Ashutosh Adkar
--
__
Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List:
13 matches
Mail list logo
