On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 09:40:14PM +0100, Patrick Strasser 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.
We are doing fine maintaining it, thank you. > Is actually anyone workong at > gnumach (not only patching)? No. Roland is working on an oskit version of gnumach. The Hurd is a server-on-top-of-a-microkernel project, and not a microkernel research project. We use what works for us. If you show us code which makes it run on a different microkernel, we might use that. It's not that important. > > 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. The reason is that we don't have a profile timer. This is from the tasks list: !!! * Mach needs to provide support for task virtual timers similar in functionality to the Unix ITIMER_PROF and ITIMER_VIRTUAL timers. > Could this be a reason of this legendary inefficiency of the Hurd? Partly. We certainly won't start random optimization without profiling things thoroughly. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
