gernot at unsw.edu.au
Sat Feb 15 07:04:29 CET 2014
On 15 Feb 2014, at 13:30 , Blaine Garst <blaine at mac.com> wrote:
>> Overall, I think that current kernels do what's architecturally possible
>> regarding IPC.
> Sorry, but I disagree, because the software architecture is wrong.
> Change the architecture and more speed is possible.
Good luck with that! L4 IPC has been unbeaten for 20 years.
On 15 Feb 2014, at 16:46 , Daniel Potts <danielp at ok-labs.com> wrote:
> You do realize some implementations of L4 IPC are sub 50 cycles with full address space switch?? A lot has happened since 1992!! You've got a lot of reading (papers and code) to do.
A good starting point would be Elphinstone & Heiser, From L3 to seL4 -- What Have We Learnt in 20 Years of L4 Microkernels?, SOSP 2013
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the l4-hackers