Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
OSNews, Generic OSes Torvalds has indeed chimed in on the micro vs. monolithic kernel debate. Going all 1992, he says: "The whole 'microkernels are simpler' argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow 'more secure' or 'more stable' is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can 'just reload' a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed." My take: While I am not qualified to reply to Linus, there is one thing I want to say: just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.
Thread beginning with comment 123046
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microkernel on a cell cpu
by stefanpa on Wed 10th May 2006 12:12 UTC
stefanpa
Member since:
2006-01-03

I was thinking the other day that a microkernel would be ideally suited for a cpu like the cell. The kernel takes up a single processing element and uses the channels for it's communications with the other processes reducing the work load of handling IPC a very small amount and providing the kernel all the resource it needs. Assuming that the memory for the processing element is enough to run a full macrokernel there will be no paging for the kernel and the memory is already protected. The Cells current state means that it isn't possible to implement as I don't believe it would be possible to get direct access to hardware from one of the SPE's neither would interrupts be accessible but an interesting idea still.

Reply Score: 1