lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance
Also, the u-kernel has been tried, MACH & Chorus, and even the real
NT core, as opposed to the Win32 API skin, and has not worked well
yet.

James Bruce wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> But nobody has been able to say why a single kernel is better than a
>> nanokernel.
>
>
> I think it's a bit more like you haven't realized the answer when people
> gave it, so let me try to be more clear. It's purely a matter of effort
> - in general it's far easier to write one process than two communicating
> processes. As far as APIs, with a single-kernel approach, an RT
> programmer just has to restrict the program to calling APIs known to be
> RT-safe (compare with MT-safe programming). In a split-kernel approach,
> the programmer has to write RT-kernel support for the APIs he wants to
> use (or beg for them to be written). Most programmers would much rather
> limit API usage than implement new kernel support themselves.
>
> A very common RT app pattern is to do a bunch of non-RT stuff, then
> enter an RT loop. For an example from my work, a robot control program
> starts by reading a bunch of configuration files before it starts doing
> anything requiring deadlines, then enters the RT control loop. Having
> to read all the configuration in a separate program and then marshall
> the data over to an RT-only process via file descriptors is quite a bit
> more effort. I guess some free RT-nanokernels might/could support
> non-RT to RT process migration, or better messaging, but there's
> additional programming effort (and overhead) that wasn't there before.
> In general an app may enter and exit RT sections several times, which
> really makes a split-kernel approach less than ideal.
>
> An easy way to visualize the difference in programming effort for the
> two approaches is to take your favorite threaded program and turn it
> into one with separate processes that only communicate via pipes. You
> can *always* do this, its just very much more painful to develop and
> maintain. Your stance of "nobody can prove why a split-kernel won't
> work" is equivalent to saying "we don't ever really need threads, since
> processes suffice". That's true, but only in the same way that I don't
> need a compilier or a pre-existing operating system to write an
> application.
>
> - Jim Bruce
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>

--
mit freundlichen Grüßen, Brian.

Dr. Brian O'Mahoney
Mobile +41 (0)79 334 8035 Email: omb@bluewin.ch
Bleicherstrasse 25, CH-8953 Dietikon, Switzerland
PGP Key fingerprint = 33 41 A2 DE 35 7C CE 5D F5 14 39 C9 6D 38 56 D5
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-29 14:28    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site