Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Eckenfels <> | Subject | Re: Topic for discussion: OS Design | Date | Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:44:09 +0200 |
| |
In article <20001022162919.B2478@zed.dcl> you wrote: > A few years ago, there was an intense debate around the question of > cooperative vs. preemptive multitasking operating system design. Today, > however, cooperative multitasking is a thing of the past, and it is virtual= > ly > undisputed that the preemptive multitasking design is highly superior to the > cooperative one.
No, this completely depends on the Task the OS has to do and the Hardware the OS has to run on. Cooperative Systems can have a lot more throughput than time sliced systems.
> It would seem that a microkernel design would fix most of these problems. = > Two > very elegant operating systems, namely the Amiga's exec.library and QNX's > Neutrino (I'm sure you can name others), used microkernels, and they were b= > oth > *very* efficient.
The problem is, that Linux is not a Microkernel Based System. So if you want a microkernel based system ust used one. There are lot out there. Based on MACH or whatever. You can consier to work with the HURD. I mean it is not a bad idea to rethink design of the Linux Kernel, but changing it into a Microkernel means rewriting it. And I am not sure it will helo the Linux development a lot (remeber ist WAS the fastest among all others, this can be due to the fact that the monolitic kernel is supperior in development effords).
Grettings Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |