[cap-talk] Cap type safe OS questions

[Ben Kloosterman]

Unbufferred , synch IPC is still the best for single cores in a single address space however with a single address space and no HW protection your task switches ( Note not a context switch ) are so fast  you can afford to lose a bit to gain greater cache coherency ,  batching , better prioritization and a better security and programming model ( which in turn may you get better overall performance) .

Regards, 

Ben 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org [mailto:cap-talk-
>bounces at mail.eros-os.org] On Behalf Of David-Sarah Hopwood
>Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 5:54 AM
>To: General discussions concerning capability systems.
>Subject: Re: [cap-talk] Cap type safe OS questions
>
>Sam Mason wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 03:48:39PM +0800, Ben Kloosterman wrote:
>>> At present the kernel only access "user" address spaces to add
>>> received messages to the queue
>>
>> Most of the micro-kernel research (i.e. just not ocap related) says
>> that unbuffered, synchronous IPC is the easiest way to get reasonable
>> performance.
>
>That's for microkernels using hardware memory protection. Ben's
>proposed system is running in a single address space. In that case,
>communication between protection domains is not a performance bottleneck.
>
>--
>David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
>http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk