4 ms·
They’re both hacks for running Linux in ways it was not intended to run, by exploiting other technology, so there’s certainly some connection.
by snazz 8y ago
They’re both hacks for running Linux in ways it was not intended to run, by exploiting other technology, so there’s certainly some connection.
- mey 8y agoYou are literally on a site called hacker news.
- johnhenry 8y agoHow was linux intended to run?
- cachvico 8y agoOn a PC.
- kej 8y agoOn a 386 with AT hard drives.
- mr_toad 8y agoIt’s in the article: “The common answer is that it requires a 32-bit architecture and an MMU and at least a megabyte of ram to fit the kernel.” He gets around the 32 bit + MMU requirement by emulation. It’s a cool hack, but it really is a hack.
- lisk1 8y agoAccording to him it takes about 5 hours to get to the command prompt which is kinda funny but interesting project nevertheless
- 0815test 8y agoI'd imagine that a modern kernel has a lot of pointless fat in it and that the 5-hours figure could be reduced if perhaps only slightly, with appropriate optimization effort. It might even be useful to deliberately have such a super-slow (but reliable, since it runs on highly deterministic microcontroller-class HW) benchmark in the mix, as you would be able to make very precise and fine-grained measurements about how even seemingly-unrelated changes might impact performance within the kernel, whether for the better or worse.
- silly-silly 8y agoI believe that the idea would not be relevant in "general purpose benchmarking improvements" due to the vast differences in micro architecture between this CPU and modern CPU's. The pipelining and internal optimizations differ greatly.