Re:The benefits and costs of writing a POSIX kernel in a hig...
by blt on Monday October 08, 2018 @10:49PM
(#18172970)
> An unoptimized research kernel
The authors would probably not call it "unoptimized". From the last paragraph in Section 8.8:
"It took effort to make Biscuit achieve this level of performance. Most of the work was in understanding why Linux
was more efficient than Biscuit, and then implementing
similar optimizations in Biscuit. These optimizations had
little to do with the choice of language, but were for the
most part standard kernel optimizations (e.g., avoiding
lock contention, avoiding TLB flushes, using better data
structures, adding caches)."
I agree that it's impressive, and better than I would have guessed.
The authors would probably not call it "unoptimized". From the last paragraph in Section 8.8:
"It took effort to make Biscuit achieve this level of performance. Most of the work was in understanding why Linux was more efficient than Biscuit, and then implementing similar optimizations in Biscuit. These optimizations had little to do with the choice of language, but were for the most part standard kernel optimizations (e.g., avoiding lock contention, avoiding TLB flushes, using better data structures, adding caches)."
I agree that it's impressive, and better than I would have guessed.