On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:01:44AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Pure per-cpu stacks would require the interrupt model of programming to
> be used, which is a design decision deep enough it's debatable whether
> it's feasible to do conversions to or from at all, never mind desirable.
> Basically every entry point into the kernel is treated as an interrupt,
> and nothing can ever sleep or be scheduled in the kernel, but rather
> only register callbacks to be run when the event waited for occurs.
> Scheduling only happens as a decision of which userspace task to resume
> when returning from the kernel to userspace, though one could envision
> a priority queue discipline for processing the registered callbacks.
To illustrate that: It's basically a difference like between
fork() and spawn(). Threads (of control) are completely decoupled
und re-coupled only by the event/callback mechanism.
This is introducing exactly the mechanisms Linus didn't like when
he decided, that he doesn't want a micro kernel architecture.
So it is not going to happen RSN.
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-- Marketing ist die Kunst, Leuten Sachen zu verkaufen, die sie nicht brauchen, mit Geld, was sie nicht haben, um Leute zu beeindrucken, die sie nicht moegen. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST