home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!osr
- From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.research
- Subject: Re: On debugging (was Re: Microkernel for Real-Time Computing)
- Message-ID: <1glfuhINNcfm@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Date: 15 Dec 92 20:41:53 GMT
- References: <1fgqaaINNntl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <1g35g7INNfvt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <1giuu1INNmp3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
- Lines: 23
- Approved: comp-os-research@ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
- Originator: osr@ftp
-
- In article <1giuu1INNmp3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> tage@cs.utwente.nl (Tage Stabell-kuloe) writes:
- > Which (in this context) is a software-engineering solution to a
- > debugging problem.
-
- So is pretty much ALL memory protection hardware, no? After all, Burroughs
- showed you didn't REALLY need all that stuff, right?
-
- > There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is more expensive for one
- > service in the kernel to [insert your favourite IPC mechanism here] in
- > order to inform another part of some event, then just jumping to it.
-
- Sure, but if you simultaneously speed up IPC (like, by making the kernel
- small enough to fit in the on-chip cache) then everything in the system
- becomes faster. If you speed up IPC enough, it becomes lost in the noise.
- If one of the reasons for the kernel's speed is its size, you slow things
- down by moving them back in.
-
- Personally, I think the ideal solution would be to provide a binary interface
- to the kernel that reains the same whether you're running in the kernel
- address space or not, so moving things into and out of the kernel simply
- becomes a matter of performance tuning.
- --
- Peter da Silva
-