The trouble with the way you're doing it is that it signals that the entire comment is an excerpt, and since you've done it a bunch of times, that makes your account look like a single-purpose account or a bot, neither of which are allowed here. I was going to post a totally different reply asking you not to do those things, and then I noticed that actually you're posting normal replies with a nonstandard header.
I would like to profusely apologize for using "Excerpt" in my comments for places I excerpt other content, although, I am hoping you'd understand that the reason I do that is for my own way of organizing my own notes... Yes, I understand that HN is a public forum, so in order to please the forum rules and regulations, so from this point forward I will try hard not use "excerpt". Even though I will try not to, if I do it in the future, then understand it was an old habit ingrained upon my stiumulus-response cortex, but nonetheless, I will make a concerted effort not to.
You're an awesome HN user. Don't sweat it for one second. Thanks!
If you simply put "> " in front of what you're quoting, it signifies the same thing. Or you can put it in double quotes, or put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
Conversely, you are an awesome HN Admin! Keep up the great work with HN! <g>
"The project is exploring a replicated-kernel OS model for the Linux operating system. In this model, multiple Linux kernel instances running on multiple nodes collaborate each other to provide applications with a single-image operating system over the nodes. The kernels transparently provide a consistent memory view across the machine boundary, so threads in a process can be spread across the nodes without an explicit declaration of memory regions to share nor accessing through a custom memory APIs. The nodes are connected through a modern low-latency interconnect, and each of them might be based on different ISA and/or hardware configuration."
Intuitively, I would think that the way to do this would be as follows:
First, we have the memory hierarchy, disk at the bottom, increasingly faster (but smaller) regions of memory closer to the CPU.
Now, if let's say a process shares memory across nodes, then what seems to make sense would be moving chunks of that memory, as needed, as "cache blocks" to the local machine that needs it.
Observation: That pattern is really not very different than what OS's do with swap files / virtual memory, except that the "swap file" is actually a larger memory region located on a remote node, across the network...
Of course there may be other issues with respect to locking, synchronization objects in memory, thread scheduling, etc., etc., but if you got the above memory access pattern right, then you'd go a long way to enabling such an OS...