> In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.970722223623.1839D-100000@sigil.csc.com>,
> Teunis Peters <teunis@usa.net> wrote:
> >On 22 Jul 1997, david parsons wrote:
> >
> >> >_I_ don't want my settings be controlled by an OS,
> >>
> >> Whyever not? Resource management is, after all, why you've got an OS
> >> in the first place.
> >
> >CPU settings that drastically change how the OS acts don't count as
> >resources....
> >
> >Not unless the CPU can be readjusted without affecting running code.
> >[as an example : try changing page-sizing on the fly... say to 8K pages
> >from 4K pages....]
>
> You don't need to do that on the fly; you do it just once, when the
> system is initializing. Unless it's a build option that changes
> the instructions that the machine execute, or an optimization for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This kind of thing is EXACTLY why it should be a compile option!
> the particular processor (adding waitstates so you won't drain a
> particular pipeline and the like), it's more useful for a general-
> purpose kernel to have it try and properly set up the cpu at
> runtime, and have it so you can turn things off manually if they
> give you problems.
FWIW not everyone WANTS a general-purpose kernel. But that SHOULD be the
default.
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ I like autoconfiguring systems.
> \/
Same - I also like dynamic systems that can change basic layout and
structure on the fly :) (as in -resizing 'struct'-type blocks +
adding/removing methods from objects on-the-fly as needed :)
Have a nice day :)
- Teunis