Sat Feb 15 11:29:34 CET 2014
faster than Mach, but (and the L4KA guys will dissent) significantly
slower than Jochen's assembly-language L4/x86 (whose IPC path is 20
times faster than Mach's).
> Does L4's performane advantage come from optimisation of the
> implementation or from its architecture? The literature suggests
> the latter however I note that many L4 implementations are written
> in assembler and that there are performance concerns about Hazelnut.
L4's advantage mainly stems from its architecture (see Jochen's paper
However, the IPC path can benefit overproportionately from some clever
optimization: It can be so short in theory that it is easy to waste
cycles if functionally is added to it without care.
hohmuth at innocent.com, hohmuth at sax.de
More information about the l4-hackers