clarification on explicit preemption points in Fiasco IPC

Sergio Ruocco sruocco at cse.unsw.edu.au
Fri Jun 22 09:37:21 CEST 2007


Alexander Warg wrote:
> In particular, the Fiasco IPC path for register only IPC runs with
> disabled interrupts and has explicit preemption points.

Then everything else in Fiasco runs with interrupts enabled and it is
preemptable. Is this correct ? Are there notable exceptions ?

> The work of Rene Reusner (unfortunately in German) describes the
> trade-off between preemptability and performance of the IPC path.
> http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/papers_ps/reusner-diplom.pdf

Very interesting. It would be good to have an English translation of
this thesis, or a paper based on it.

Thanks a lot for the prompt and informative answer,

	Sergio

-- 

Sergio Ruocco, PhD                                       Research Fellow
ruocco at disco.unimib.it / sergio.ruocco at gmail.com            NOMADIS Lab.
phone: +39-02-6448-7879               mobile, embedded real-time systems
skype: 'sergioruocco'    Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sruocco.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pipermail/l4-hackers/attachments/20070622/24ce71e0/attachment.vcf>


More information about the l4-hackers mailing list