lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Topic for discussion: OS Design
    Date
    In article <20001022162919.B2478@zed.dcl> you wrote:
    > A few years ago, there was an intense debate around the question of
    > cooperative vs. preemptive multitasking operating system design. Today,
    > however, cooperative multitasking is a thing of the past, and it is virtual=
    > ly
    > undisputed that the preemptive multitasking design is highly superior to the
    > cooperative one.

    No, this completely depends on the Task the OS has to do and the Hardware
    the OS has to run on. Cooperative Systems can have a lot more throughput
    than time sliced systems.

    > It would seem that a microkernel design would fix most of these problems. =
    > Two
    > very elegant operating systems, namely the Amiga's exec.library and QNX's
    > Neutrino (I'm sure you can name others), used microkernels, and they were b=
    > oth
    > *very* efficient.

    The problem is, that Linux is not a Microkernel Based System. So if you want
    a microkernel based system ust used one. There are lot out there. Based on
    MACH or whatever. You can consier to work with the HURD. I mean it is not a
    bad idea to rethink design of the Linux Kernel, but changing it into a
    Microkernel means rewriting it. And I am not sure it will helo the Linux
    development a lot (remeber ist WAS the fastest among all others, this can be
    due to the fact that the monolitic kernel is supperior in development
    effords).

    Grettings
    Bernd
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.022 / U:29.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site