Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site callan.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!wlbr!callan!tim
From: tim@callan.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.16k
Subject: Re: Re: PDP11s vs the micros
Message-ID: <1087@callan.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 19:59:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: callan.1087
Posted: Mon Aug 26 19:59:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 04:57:00 EDT
References: <1617@hao.UUCP> <847@mako.UUCP> <2422@sun.uucp> <2607@sun.uucp> <492@oakhill.UUCP> <489@talcott.UUCP>
Organization: Callan Data Systems, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:1087 net.micro.16k:378

> I find this argument amusing. You just generated a page fault.  That
> means context switch, disk driver, housekeeping, ... .  Compared to all
> this, the overhead of your instruction re-start is going to be
> negligible no matter how inefficiently you do it.

Yes, but how about when you DON'T have a page fault?  His point is that
the 68020 can go ahead and do a lot of other stuff, cause it don't matter
if the write a couple instructions back failed, whereas the instruction
restart machine might have to wait to be sure that there will be no
page fault.
-- 
					Tim Smith
				ihnp4!{cithep,wlbr!callan}!tim