[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The well-factored 386
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:59:41PM +0100, you [John Bradford] wrote:
> > > I didn't realise he was talking about an x86 emulator. I thought he
> > > was analyzing real hardware.
> > >
> > > The one thing that made it on-topic for me was his quiet suggestion
> > > that "forreal" mode interrupts are faster, and that it might, perhaps,
> > > be possible to modify a Linux kernel to run in that mode - to take
> > > advantage of the faster interrupts.
> >
> > That would have to be a kernel for very special use. The "forreal"
> > mode has protection turned off. As far as I know, that
> > means any user process can take over the cpu as if
> > it was running in kernel mode.
> >
> > Perhaps useful for some embedded use with only a couple well-tested
> > processes running. Still, a programming error could overwrite
> > kernel memory instead of segfaulting.
> Anything that's single user and non-networked isn't beyond the realms
> of feasability - it would be useful for a games console, or high
> performance graphics work.
> It would be an interesting project, but what concerns me is how well
> implemented these non-standard modes actually are. It's possible that
> there are processors out there that don't work reliably with them, or
> don't implement them at all.

Have you looked at Kernel Mode Linux?

I don't think it uses "forreal" mode, but it allows running selected user
processes in kernel mode thus getting rid of system call overhead.

[Note to Toshiyuki Maeda: the complete thread is at
in case you want to catch some context. The "forreal" idea is mentioned in
the first mail of the thread.]

-- v --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean