How can Minix 3 be so small
gernot at nicta.com.au
Wed Jun 27 03:09:31 CEST 2007
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:39:51 +0200, "Neal H. Walfield" <neal at walfield.org> said:
>> Could anybody explain why Fiasco is so big in comparison with
>> Minix 3? From the difference in size I would expect that there is
>> an essential difference in the feature set between Minix 3 and
>> Fiasco. Or are the Minix lines just four times longer on average?
NHW> I recollect from a talk that Jorrit Herder gave about that Minix3 does
NHW> not support paged memory: it uses segments for enforcing protection,
NHW> which explains a large part of the difference you observe.
... which, among others, means that it cannot set up shared memory
regions for high-bandwidth cross address-space communication.
The lack of portability has been mentioned too. Finally, L4 versions
have a lot of fastpath code for low-latency IPC. My understanding is
that Minix IPC is significantly slower than L4's. There are other
optimisations in L4 implementations that add to the code size.
In general, you can always expect the need for a few extra things once
a system moves from academia into the real world (as L4 has).
Having said that, Open Kernel Labs has stripped a fair bit of code
from their OKL4 kernel (derived from Pistachio).
More information about the l4-hackers