[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?



OKUJI Yoshinori (okuji@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp) wrote:

>   To understand why Mach emulation is bad, you need to know how L4
> improved IPC performance. They have improved the performance in
> various aspects, but in simple words, they made IPC semantics more
> lean. If you add the extra flesh again, the performance would be the
> same as Mach. In fact, they demonstrated this in the paper on
> Unix/L3. Anyway, read articles/papers on L3/L4 as many as
> possible. You should be able to realize how difficult getting good
> perfomance is. Very careful optimizations are necessary (e.g. see the
> paper on L4-Linux).
> 
>   However, I think Mach emulation would be a good thing as the first
> step, because you will be able to investigate how different L4 is from
> Mach and what would be necessary to be done in details. But I'd like
> to point out that Mach emulation should be temporary but not a
> permanent solution.

NO - a Mach emulation would only be a _step_ in porting. Eventually it
would be ideal to do away with all the Mach dependencies, but FIRST we
need to get hurd to actually work on L4. 

>   Isn't your (ultimate) goal to remove Mach-things from Hurd? cthreads
> is a Mach-only multithreading method, while pthreads is designed for a
> platform-independent manner. In addition, obviously, much more
> programmers know pthreads than cthreads.

Yes, again this would only be a temporary step. pthreads is the
ultimate goal. 

>   That's a very, very good thing. It is certain that big projects such
> as Hurd cannot be cooperatively developed without clear goals. I'm
> quite glad to hear that you make an effort. Please call me out when
> you begin the work. I'd like to participate. :)

Great! Let's see what everyone thinks. If the majory think this is
worthwile (I do, and hope everyone else does) then we'll see how we can 
organize specific tasks for people... 

Ron

Attachment: pgpEPIe0OMJDI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: