8 ms·
What would your goal be? I think locking a modern, general-purpose OS to a small number of cores would artificially constrain performance, assuming a reasonabl
by setpatchaddress 6y ago
What would your goal be? I think locking a modern, general-purpose OS to a small number of cores would artificially constrain performance, assuming a reasonable scheduler.
- Zenst 6y agoThe OS don't need that much grunt, some drivers maybe - hence one or two cores, isolated away from user software and secure. Scheduler wise it would become easier as no juggling cycles upon main core that the OS is running upon. Whilst not hitting real-time OS levels, it would be a nice middle ground in some area's as well. Also for cores, the OS and user software don't need the same OS when the OS is just API calls passing parameters, so would be viable to have the OS upon one core type and the user-space cores a totally different architecture. That again would add another level of security.
- billsnow 6y agoYou can already do this. There's a kernel boot parameter called isocpu or something and the kernel will only run on the logical cpus listed. Furthermore, you can isolate your user programs. The general benefit is latency, but there's a theoretical trade-off in scheduling bandwidth. The memory heirarchy will be utilized less efficiently too.