Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:53:33 -0600 (MDT) | From | Teunis Peters <> | Subject | Re: Kernel cpu selection + other platforms? |
| |
On 23 Jul 1997, david parsons wrote:
> 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
| |