It should have gotten a little better with the introduction of incremental retype, but probably hasn’t changed significantly.
Cheers,
Gerwin
On 26 Oct 2016, at 16:51, Adrian.Danis@data61.csiro.aumailto:Adrian.Danis@data61.csiro.au wrote:
Right. I don't think we have measured the performance recently so I cannot comment off the top of my head, but at the same time I cannot think of a reason for why it would have changed.
Adrian
On Wed 26-Oct-2016 3:46 PM, Jeff Waugh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM, mailto:Adrian.Danis@data61.csiro.au> wrote:
The difference is that recycle does not require you to keep around (or be given) the untyped in order to then be able to perform the retype. Recycle is also a single syscall, and thus has better performance, than revoke + retype.
Oh yes, sorry, I know the difference in behaviour -- is the difference in performance in today's seL4 similar to what was outlined in the paper? I had it on my list of things to pay attention to based on those results.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systemsmailto:Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systemsmailto:Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
