[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mach emulation
From: |
Gernot Heiser |
Subject: |
Re: Mach emulation |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:55:54 +1100 |
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:28:56 +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori <address@hidden> wrote,
okuji> > Would it be safe to assume that a multiprocessor ukernel multiplexes
okuji> > kernel-level threads to the available processors transparently?
okuji>
okuji> As far as I see L4/Alpha, that isn't.
You're right. The principle of separation of policy and mechanisms
requires that the kernel is free of policies (such as load
balancing).
It's also required for efficiency. Running a thread on the "wrong"
processor is costly (cache coherency) and migrating is expensive
(cold caches).
I've used that to start an L4 FAQ -
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~disy/L4/faq.html
Gernot
Gernot Heiser ,--_|\ School of Computer Sci. & Engin.
Phone: +61 2 9385 5156 / \ The University of NSW
Fax: +61 2 9385 5533 \_,--._* UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052, Australia
E-mail: address@hidden v http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot
- Re: Mach emulation, (continued)
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/11
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/14
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/14
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/14
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/14
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/15
- Re: Mach emulation, Farid Hajji, 2000/11/16