lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules

Actually, I spent four months at Novell profiling Chorus, MACH and TMOK
(Trusted Modular Object Kernel -- a very nice piece of work) with EMON
and an AArium profiling bus footprints -- the result. C++ kernels are
slightly slower, and hit the wall on I/O performance due to excessive
memory read/write activity.

Chorus, TMOK, and MACH on a PPro X 4 has bus utilizations WHILE IDLE of
@ 60,000,000 clocks (there were only 219,000,000 total per second).
NetWare on the other hand was right around 75,000 and NT was at
2,000,000 for just background memory reads/writes. As soon as I/O
loading tests started, they all sucked wind. The whole idea of a
kernel is to squeeze every clock you can to increase the capcity the OS
can support for both I/O and app loading. NetWare is more optimized
than most and has the greatest capacity, but it's because we got rid of
every useless code path and C++ construct in the kernel, then hand
optimized the fast paths in assembler.

C++ makes it tough to achieve this level of optimization.

Jeff

"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
>
> Firs of all, as someone said, is there any other list where we can discuss this
> ?
> It is ver off-topic here...
>
> I messed in the discussion because I'm tired of seein people say that they don't
> use
> C++ because their big overheads, being slow, messed, out of programmer's control
> for
> low level tasks and so on. They seem to not have read anything about compilers
> or
> the design of C++. One of the premises of C++ was tat ANYTHING that could be
> done in
> C was not slower or used more resources for being done with a c++ feature.
>
> In the kernel you say in C:
>
> generic_driver_init(&my_driver,ñparams);
> my_driver->specific_init(&my_driver,params);
>
> and in C++
> my_driver.init(params), that could be automatically configured to call the
> generic init also.
>
> and THAT IS NO OVERHEAD, no address fetching to call a simple member, and just
> the same as
> in C for a inherited member.
>
> My point of view is that there's many code in the kernel to implement generic to
> specific inits,
> functions for drivers and so on that could be generated by a C++ compiler, with
> no overhead
> at runtime. Load a module and find the init proc, the io proc, store them in
> pointers and
> use pointers to functions to use the driver. Thats hand-writen C++.
>
> --
> Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta mailto:jamagallon@able.es
>
> -
> 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/
-
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:0.030 / U:1.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site