From af4eb6b7901f0871d46b4de27486f47266f24e99 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gdisirio Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:29:43 +0000 Subject: git-svn-id: svn://svn.code.sf.net/p/chibios/svn/trunk@755 35acf78f-673a-0410-8e92-d51de3d6d3f4 --- docs/src/goals.dox | 27 +++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) (limited to 'docs/src/goals.dox') diff --git a/docs/src/goals.dox b/docs/src/goals.dox index d19c7d70a..3a2209f0c 100644 --- a/docs/src/goals.dox +++ b/docs/src/goals.dox @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ * . *

Why is it different?

* Well, there are some design choices that should be explained and contribute - * to make ChibiOS/RT a peculiar design. Nothing really new by itself but + * to make ChibiOS/RT a peculiar design. Nothing really new in itself but * the whole is interesting: * *

Static design

@@ -46,11 +46,11 @@ * there are two allocator subsystems but those are options and not part of * core OS. Safety is something you design in, not something you can add later. * - *

No tables or other fixed structures

+ *

No tables, arrays or other fixed structures

* The kernel has no internal tables, there is nothing that must be configured * at compile time or that can overflow at run time. No upper bounds, the * internal structures are all dynamic even if all the objects are statically - * allocated. Things that are not there cannot go wrong and take no space. + * allocated. * *

No error conditions and no error checks

* All the system APIs have no error conditions, all the previous points are @@ -60,25 +60,25 @@ * parameter checks (and consistency checks) do exists but only when the * debug switch is activated.
* All the static core APIs always succeed if correct parameters are passed. + * Exception to this are the optional allocators APIs that, of course, + * can report memory exhausted. * *

Very simple APIs

* Every API should have the parameters you would expect for that function, no * more no less. Each API does a single thing with no options. * *

Fast and compact

- * Note first "fast" then "compact", the focus is on speed and execution - * efficiency rather than code size. This does not mean it is large, the OS - * size with all the subsystems activated is well below 8KiB (32bit ARM code, - * the least space efficient) and can shrink down below 2KiB. It would be - * possible to make something smaller but: + * Note, first "fast" then "compact", the focus is on speed and execution + * efficiency and then on code size. This does not mean that the OS is large, + * the kernel size with all the subsystems activated is around 5.3KiB + * and can shrink down around to 1.2Kib in a minimal configuration + * (STM32, Cortex-M3). It would be possible to make something even smaller but: * -# It would be pointless, it is already @a really small. - * -# I would not sacrifice efficiency or features in order to save few bytes. + * -# I would not trade efficiency or features in order to save few bytes. * . * About the "fast" part, the kernel is able to start/exit more than - * 200,000 threads per second on a 72MHz STM32 (Cortex-M3). - * The Context Switch just takes 2.3 microseconds on the same STM32. - * The numbers are not pulled out of thin air, it is the output of the - * included test suite. + * 200,000 threads per second on a 72MHz STM32. + * The Context Switch takes 2.3 microseconds on the same STM32. * *

Tests and metrics

* I think it is nice to know how an OS is tested and how it performs before @@ -88,4 +88,3 @@ * the test suite and the OS benchmarks. */ /** @} */ - \ No newline at end of file -- cgit v1.2.3