Neal H Walfield wrote: > I do not think removing a few functions would make any kind of > difference -- if they are that slow avoid using them.
It would be a lot of work and break the interface/compatibility with other flavours of Mach, if that is a reason for the project. But OTOH it would ease maintenance. Is actually anyone workong at gnumach (not only patching)? > The reason the L4 > people claim that Mach is so slow is that it uses async ipc messages. > What does that mean? I send a message to you. Inside the message, I > send a reply port. After I send the message, I wait on the reply port > until you send me the result. In L4 they have (only) synchronous > messages based on your tid (thread id) so when you send a message, it > is ``easier'' to optimize. I remember of reading of neither the Hurd nor gnumach being profiled at all. Could this be a reason of this legendary inefficiency of the Hurd? Patrick
