Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:56:38 +0330 | From | mshar@vax ... | Subject | Re: Remote fork() and Parallel Programming |
| |
Hi,
Rik van Riel <H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
>> Maybe I have not expressed my views very clearly. Very briefly, I would >> rather see the kernel offer high level services like dynamic process >> migration. It is not important which mechanism can simulate the other one. >> The important think is to allow the application programmer to use the cluster >> as easily as using a single computer. Transparency is the keyword here. Such >> services can be offered very transparently thru the kernel, even if they are >> not completely implemented inside the kernel. > >This is screaming for bare-bones kernel support with the rest >inside a 'semi-transparent' library... >A fat kernel is not needed when a library can do more things >easier.
Right. If the services to application programs are offered only via the kernel, then we can have near complete transparency. This is one way to cope with a monolithic kernel.
-Kamran Karimi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |