Abstract
Flexibility can significantly impact performance. Some component-based frameworks come with a near to zero overhead but provide only build-time configurability. Other solutions provide a high degree of flexibility but with an uncontrollable and a possibly unacceptable impact on performance. We believe that no flexible systems give programmers a means to control the inherent overhead introduced by flexibility. This prevents from reaching acceptable tradeoffs between performance and flexibility, according to the applications needs or hardware targets. This paper presents an ongoing work that aims to redesign the existing Think component framework. Once revisited, the framework makes possible to finely adjust the flexibility to the actually desired needs and thus better control the induced performance overhead. A categorization of the dimensions of flexibility is also introduced in order to articulate our proposition.
This work has been partially supported by the ANR/RNTL project Flex-eWare.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Assmann, U.: Invasive Software Composition. Springer, New York (2003)
Denys, G., Piessens, F., Matthijs, F.: A survey of customizability in operating systems research. ACM Comput. Surv. 34(4), 450–468 (2002)
Bershad, et al.: Extensibility safety and performance in the SPIN operating system. In: Proc. of the 15th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (1995)
Bruneton, et al.: The Fractal Component Model and its Support in Java. Software - Practice and Experience, special issue on Experiences with Auto-adaptive and Reconfigurable Systems (2006)
Dunkels, et al.: Contiki - A Lightweight and Flexible Operating System for Tiny Networked Sensors. In: LCN 2004: Proc. of the 29th Annual IEEE Intl. Conf. on Local Computer Networks (LCN 2004) (2004)
Fassino, et al.: Think: a software framework for component-based operating system kernels. In: Proc. of the 2002 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (June 2002)
Ford, et al.: The Flux OS Toolkit: Reusable Components for OS Implementation. In: Proc. of the 6th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (1997)
Hill, et al.: System architecture directions for networked sensors. In: Proc. of the ninth Intl. Conf. on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems (ASPLOS) (2000)
Polakovic, et al.: Building reconfigurable component-based OS with THINK. In: 32nd Euromicro Conf. on Software Engeneering and Advanced Applications (2006)
Pu, C., et al.: Optimistic incremental specialization: Streamlining a commercial operating system. In: Proc. of the 15th Symp. on Operating System Principles (1995)
Soules, et al.: System support for online reconfiguration. In: Proc. of the 2003 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (June 2003)
Helander, J., Forin, A.: MMLite: a highly componentized system architecture. In: EW 8: Proc. of the 8th ACM SIGOPS European workshop on Support for composing distributed applications (1998)
Szyperski, C.: Component Software, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lobry, O., Polakovic, J. (2008). Controlling the Performance Overhead of Component-Based Systems. In: Pautasso, C., Tanter, É. (eds) Software Composition. SC 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4954. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78789-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78789-1_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78788-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78789-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)