Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Apr 2006 15:36 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Right in between a car crash and Easter, I knew I had to write a Sunday Eve Column. So here I am, digesting vast quantities of chocolate eggs (and I don't even like chocolate), craving for coffee (for me about as special as breathing), with the goal of explaining to you my, well, obsession with microkernels. Why do I like them? Why do I think the microkernel paradigm is superior to the monolithic one? Read on.
Thread beginning with comment 115289
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Timer
by _tef on Sun 16th Apr 2006 16:24 UTC
_tef
Member since:
2006-04-16

The timer has to be in the kernel. How else would the scheduler function?

:D

Reply Score: 5

RE: Timer
by CaptainPinko on Sun 16th Apr 2006 18:43 in reply to "Timer"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

There has been talk in nanokernels of making the scheduler user-space to so that different apps could use different schedulers. For example there could be problems with not being MP-safe so you'd want to have finer control, or some legacy code that makes certain exceptions, or a myriad of other reasons.

The timer has to be in the kernel. How else would the scheduler function?

Cooperatively? Don't laugh. That's an option and if you can plug-in various schedulers it could be useful, especially for something like Wine emulating Windows 3.11, or if you have some real time (RT) tasks and non-RT. Where you could put the on-RT scheduler as a process with the RT-scheduler.

I don't recall where I read this, but I believe it was in some paper on a branch of the L4 project.

Reply Parent Score: 3