> > Which doesn't mix well with timesharing.
>
> But IRIX seems to be monolithic and handles realtime content quite well.
Erm... First of all, RT != microkernel. And IIRC IRIX runs on boxen with
very smart periphs.
[snip]
> there seems to be some discrepancy about what is better uKernel or monolithic,
> certainly it's easier to do RT stuff on a uKernel because all drivers run as
> processes, but I think it's not impossible to archieve similar results on
> monolithic kernels.
> Yes, you have to deal with spinlocking and related stuff, but you get the
> added bonus of less syscall overhead, which is in some cases 3 to 10 times
> bigger on uKernels. ( read on the L4 for Linux papers).
>
> Could maybe one solution to port all the Linux device drives to the L4 for
> Linux uKernel ?
Huh? What does *that* have to their situation? They control the hardware,
so... Why would drivers for everything and sundry be a problem?
> Actually on L4 for Linux the kernel runs as a single big server, and therefore
> these big scheduling latency problems would not go away, until you port
> every device driver to L4 IMHO. (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> The L4 folks benchmarked L4 for Linux and this uKernel runs only
> about 6-7% slower than a standard Linux kernel which is not so much.
> I would be happy to sacrifice 6-7% of performance to have a kernel
> with good RT features.
Than use it. If you already have the thing - what's the problem?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/