The concept of "processor sets" in mach for multi-personaity kernels was
a cool idea -- but the only one (oink, oink, oink).
Jeff
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In article <20000823193814.A24509@gruyere.muc.suse.de>,
> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >To solve that it would be very nice to have Mach like continuations in
> >Linux (multiple kernel threads sharing a kernel stack)
>
> Oh, Gods, no.
>
> Continuations are evil. And they don't scale in SMP. Don't even think
> about them.
>
> Mach had a lot of bad ideas. In fact, I can't think of a single _good_
> idea from Mach. This one certainly was not.
>
> (As far as I can tell, the only reason for continuations in Mach was
> that Mach performance sucks without them, and it was a way of handling
> the process switches from a client process into a server process without
> the overhead. Of course, the right solution to that particular problem
> is to not use a microkernel at all, but that was ea bit too non-radical
> for the Mach guys).
>
> Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:09 EST