From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@inria.fr>
To: Konstantin Tcholokachvili <tcholoka@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml implementation and low level details
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:45:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100128134530.GD4873@const.bordeaux.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ecafee001001280535k246e2e3bl500885ebcc1bf655@mail.gmail.com>
Konstantin Tcholokachvili, le Thu 28 Jan 2010 14:35:50 +0100, a écrit :
> > - Also need I disable Ocaml theading subsystem? (Obviously yes, but are
> there
> > some limitations?)
>
> IIRC we just needed to port it.
>
>
> OK but as there is a giant lock (as I heard), I'm afraid that the
> multithreading subsystem of my kernel will suffer from that.
> Am I correct?
Ah, the kernel can't be running concurrently, yes. Just like Linux 2.0
was working, actually.
> > Are there other important considerations to take?
>
> In my memory, mostly the direct access to some kinds of memory, like the
> video memory: we faked a string with the -unsafe option to get efficient
> direct access.
>
> So must I also make tricks to have DMA acess?
Yes, unless you get hooks into the caml runtime to be notified of
garbage collection, to update pointers & such.
> > Do you think that Ocaml is suitable for OS coding (I''m using C now).
>
> It's much better for all the programmability & safety reasons. Funk
> showed that it is possible. Performance should be quite good. Now the
> pragmatic answer would be that Linux already works quite well and has
> all the drivers we need, while yet another new kernel would have to
> rewrite them all. And about performance, when you see how much Linux
> people care about tiny details in their lock implementation etc., a caml
> implementation wouldn't suit that.
>
> My goal isn't to have a kenel portable across many platforms but only
> to some kind of hardware. It's a hobby project.
Ok, then you can probably start with the current funk testbed :)
> Why caml's implementation wouldn't be suitable? Because of the giant lock as I
> mentioned before?
Because you do not have as much control over e.g. data alignment & such
as in C. Linux people spend quite some time fine-tuning such small
details and get performance benefits.
Samuel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-28 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 12:42 Konstantin Tcholokachvili
2010-01-28 12:55 ` [Caml-list] " Samuel Thibault
[not found] ` <ecafee001001280510t10cde708h7e2d258629cb0f9c@mail.gmail.com>
2010-01-28 13:12 ` Konstantin Tcholokachvili
2010-01-28 13:18 ` Samuel Thibault
2010-01-28 13:35 ` Konstantin Tcholokachvili
2010-01-28 13:45 ` Samuel Thibault [this message]
2010-01-28 17:28 ` Konstantin Tcholokachvili
2010-01-28 17:47 ` Basile STARYNKEVITCH
2010-01-28 18:39 ` Richard Jones
2010-01-28 20:22 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2010-01-28 21:16 ` Konstantin Tcholokachvili
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100128134530.GD4873@const.bordeaux.inria.fr \
--to=samuel.thibault@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=tcholoka@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox