5 ms·

LINPACK would probably run equivalently. Anything that just needs the CPU will work about the same. It's overhead like networking/disk/display where microkernel

LINPACK would probably run equivalently. Anything that just needs the CPU will work about the same. It's overhead like networking/disk/display where microkernels lose out. Not saying that's overall a reason not to use, as the tradeoffs in terms of isolation/simplicity/security are an area very much worth investigating.

zzzcpan 8y ago
For networking and disk io monolithic kernel has to be pretty much completely bypassed already if you want high performance, see netmap/vale architecture for example. Not sure about display though, but don't expect monolithic kernel to help here somehow either.
- hackcasual 8y ago
  A microkernel gives programs less direct access to hardware.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Userspace implementations of various protocols usually suffer from various problems, most notoriously that applications can't share an interface (how would you if both try to write ethernet frames at the same time?) and lackluster performance in low-throughput scenarios (high throughput != low latency and high packet throughput != high bandwidth througput) GPUs don't have much security at all, there is lots of DMA or mapped memory. Though on most modern monolithic kernels a lot of this work is either in modules (AMDGPU on Linux is usually a module not compiled into the kernel) or even userspace (AMDGPU-Pro in this case). Mesa probably also counts. Microkernels aren't the ideal kernel design. Monolithic isn't either. I put most of my bets on either Modular Kernels if CPUs can get more granual security (MILL CPU looks promising) or Hybrid Kernels like NT where some stuff runs in Ring 0 where it's beneficial and the res in userspace.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    > that applications can't share an interface Of course they can share an interface, I even pointed out the vale switch as an example of this [1]. And it is very fast. The thing is isolation and granularity that microkernels happen to have force certain design and implementation choices that benefit both performance and security on modern systems. And monolithic kernels while theoretically can be as fast and as secure actually discourage good designs. [1] http://www.openvswitch.org/support/ovscon2014/18/1630-ovs-rizzo-talk.pdf http://www.openvswitch.org/support/ovscon2014/18/1630-ovs-ri...
    - zaarn 8y ago
      It doesn't look like netmap is actual raw access to the interface like I mentioned. I also severely doubt that microkernels encourage efficient design. I'll give you secure but it's not inherent to microkernels either (NT is a microkernel, somewhat, and has had lots of vuln's over the years, the difference between microkernels and monolithic or hybrids like NT is that most microkernels don't have enough exposure to even get a sensible comparison going) IMO microkernels encourage inefficient designs as everything becomes IPC and all device drivers need to switch ring when they need to do something sensitive (like writing to an IO Port unless the kernel punches holes into ring 0 that definitely don't encourage security). Monolithic kernels don't necessarily encourage security but definitely efficiency/performance. A kernel like Linux doesn't have to switch priv ring to do DMA to the harddisk and it can perform tasks entirely in one privilege level (esp. with Meltdown, switching ring is a performance sensitive operation unless you punch holes into security). I don't think monolithic kernels encourage bad design. I think they are what people intuitively do when they write a kernel. Most of them then converge into hybrid or modular designs which offer the advantages of microkernels without the drawbacks.
      - zzzcpan 8y ago
        You are assuming that switching priv ring is a bottleneck, which it isn't. The cost of the switch is constant and is easily amortizable, no matter the amount of stuff you have to process.
        8y ago

zzzcpan 8y ago

For networking and disk io monolithic kernel has to be pretty much completely bypassed already if you want high performance, see netmap/vale architecture for example. Not sure about display though, but don't expect monolithic kernel to help here somehow either.

hackcasual 8y ago
A microkernel gives programs less direct access to hardware.
zaarn 8y ago
Userspace implementations of various protocols usually suffer from various problems, most notoriously that applications can't share an interface (how would you if both try to write ethernet frames at the same time?) and lackluster performance in low-throughput scenarios (high throughput != low latency and high packet throughput != high bandwidth througput) GPUs don't have much security at all, there is lots of DMA or mapped memory. Though on most modern monolithic kernels a lot of this work is either in modules (AMDGPU on Linux is usually a module not compiled into the kernel) or even userspace (AMDGPU-Pro in this case). Mesa probably also counts. Microkernels aren't the ideal kernel design. Monolithic isn't either. I put most of my bets on either Modular Kernels if CPUs can get more granual security (MILL CPU looks promising) or Hybrid Kernels like NT where some stuff runs in Ring 0 where it's beneficial and the res in userspace.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > that applications can't share an interface Of course they can share an interface, I even pointed out the vale switch as an example of this [1]. And it is very fast. The thing is isolation and granularity that microkernels happen to have force certain design and implementation choices that benefit both performance and security on modern systems. And monolithic kernels while theoretically can be as fast and as secure actually discourage good designs. [1] http://www.openvswitch.org/support/ovscon2014/18/1630-ovs-rizzo-talk.pdf http://www.openvswitch.org/support/ovscon2014/18/1630-ovs-ri...
  - zaarn 8y ago
    It doesn't look like netmap is actual raw access to the interface like I mentioned. I also severely doubt that microkernels encourage efficient design. I'll give you secure but it's not inherent to microkernels either (NT is a microkernel, somewhat, and has had lots of vuln's over the years, the difference between microkernels and monolithic or hybrids like NT is that most microkernels don't have enough exposure to even get a sensible comparison going) IMO microkernels encourage inefficient designs as everything becomes IPC and all device drivers need to switch ring when they need to do something sensitive (like writing to an IO Port unless the kernel punches holes into ring 0 that definitely don't encourage security). Monolithic kernels don't necessarily encourage security but definitely efficiency/performance. A kernel like Linux doesn't have to switch priv ring to do DMA to the harddisk and it can perform tasks entirely in one privilege level (esp. with Meltdown, switching ring is a performance sensitive operation unless you punch holes into security). I don't think monolithic kernels encourage bad design. I think they are what people intuitively do when they write a kernel. Most of them then converge into hybrid or modular designs which offer the advantages of microkernels without the drawbacks.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      You are assuming that switching priv ring is a bottleneck, which it isn't. The cost of the switch is constant and is easily amortizable, no matter the amount of stuff you have to process.
      - 8y ago