Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:14:16 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Kernel support for peer-to-peer protection models... |
| |
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:21:36 -0800 "Ivan Godard" <igodard@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Maybe you can give each process an different address range, but AFAIK > > the only people who have done this before are users of non MMU > architectures. > > It will probably require som changes in the portable part of the code. > > Also porting glibc's ld.so to this will be likely no-fun. > > Each process gets a different range because each process gets a different > native space. Within that space processes can use the same offsets, and > typically will so as to avoid pointless relocation.
fork() will be hard and/or inefficient this way.
> > Overall it sounds like your architecture is not very well suited to > > run Linux. > > We believe we can adopt the Linux protection model (i.e. the 386 protection > model) with no more work than any other port to a new architectire (ahem).
Just FYI - Linux has been ported to several architectures with similar SASOS capabilities in hardware (IA64 or ppc64 on iseries) and they have all opted to use an conventional protection model.
> So long as 1) a driver has a driver-load-time defined region of working data > space; 2) has a defined code region; 3) gets its buffer addresses etc. as
Just (1) alone is a illusion - linux drivers generally work on the shared page pool, just like all other subsystems.
-Andi
- 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/
| |