IPC performance comparison of Fiasco.OC and Pistachio
sergio.ruocco.ml at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 21:24:26 CET 2011
On 03/10/2011 07:52 PM, Jaeyeon Kang wrote:
> I have a question about IPC performance of Fiasco.OC and Pistachio. When
> I compared the performance for a pingpong benchmark, Pistachio provides
> better performance than Fiasco.OC (about 1.5 times faster). Is there
> anyone who can explain the reasons that Fiasco.OC’s IPC is slower
> compared to Pistachio?
Fiasco is a real-time implementation of the L4 API.
Compared to the vanilla, general-purpose L4:Pistachio, Fiasco has to
manage carefully the priorities of tasks which interact through IPC in
order to keep the real-time scheduling algorithms working properly.
To get the full story with all the details, you should read some papers
about Fiasco and L4, which you can find listed here:
You may be also interested in some papers about the real-time properties
of general-purpose L4 microkernels. I wrote few of them a while ago; my
most recent one is:
It contains a discussion of some real-time issues found in Pistachio
(and their solutions), and a list of further references you can refer to.
I hope this answers your question.
Dr. Sergio Ruocco Research Fellow http://www.disco.unimib.it/ruocco
mailto:ruocco at disco.unimib.it / sergio.ruocco at gmail.com NOMADIS Lab
phone: +39-02-6448-7914 Mobile, embedded real-time systems
skype: 'sergioruocco' Dip. di Informatica, Sistemistica e COmunicazione
Building U14, room 1003 Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italy
W La ricerca http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6518779854944519929
Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is
not original, and the part that is original is not good.
More information about the l4-hackers