To clarify , my view is that paging to disk is bad to have as a compulsory
feature as it strongly limits the platforms your OS  runs on ( I prefer it
as optional , and in my case I turn it off as I prefer out of memory
messages to death by paging and lower power use by spinning down the disk).

With regard to paging ie Virtual Memory with pages it provides a cheap write
barrier , now for an OS which does not limit the runtime it is almost
compulsory. For a language based OS that compiles from an IR like
Singularity/MOSA you are better of integrating such write barriers into the
GC code and even skip Virtual memory and the associated TLB flushes.

Regards, 

Ben


 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: William Leslie [mailto:[email protected]]
 >Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:21 AM
 >To: CapROS development
 >Subject: Re: [CapROS-devel] Paging and Garbage Collection
 >
 >On 25 February 2010 19:20, Michal Suchanek <[email protected]> wrote:
 >> On 25 February 2010 04:30, William Leslie
 ><[email protected]> wrote:
 >>> Letting the application developer decide the paging strategy makes
 >>> memory pressure a more useful covert channel, though. It could be
 >less
 >>> of a big deal now that applications are moving to safe languages,
 >>> indeed, it may be reasonable to allow application specific paging
 >>> algorithms working in an environment where side effects from the
 >>> frequency of paging are provably impossible.
 >>
 >> You can't force the application to run in a safe language, can you?
 >
 >I meant the pager, but I was wrong anyway. As long as the pager
 >implements the eviction strategy, and not the process of populating
 >the pages, this is safe. But if you want to, for example, use memory
 >as a cache but generate its contents on page in, or implement an
 >application or language specific serialisation and persistence
 >strategy, that is a different kettle of fish.
 >
 >On 26 February 2010 04:35, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
 >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:30 PM, William Leslie
 >> <[email protected]> wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Letting the application developer decide the paging strategy makes
 >>> memory pressure a more useful covert channel, though.
 >>
 >>
 >> Not correct. What creates the channel is allowing the memory pressure
 >of one
 >> application to have impact on the paging behavior of a second
 >application.
 >> If this is sufficiently isolated, there is no further hazard from
 >allowing
 >> the application to make its own eviction choice.
 >
 >Sure, but a fixed allocation could be prohibitively expensive as a
 >default in a general purpose system. You want to use the ram you have.
 >Giving each user, let alone each eg browser process their own
 >dedicated spacebank does not seem reasonable, and neither does
 >requiring the user to set allocations.
 >
 >William Leslie
 >
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >------
 >Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
 >Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
 >proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
 >See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
 >http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
 >_______________________________________________
 >CapROS-devel mailing list
 >[email protected]
 >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/capros-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
CapROS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/capros-devel

Reply via email to