No need for money yet! Let's get this party started. I have queries in to ampere as to how we can set up a simulator. However, if someone wants to take a first step, take that 2011 code, bring it to your plan 9 system, and see if it builds.
Again, the key here is a sustained effort. You don't have to do a lot each week, but you don't want to start and then drop it. So it needs to NOT become all consuming. It's all about pacing yourself. Anybody who's ever spent a few weeks digging ditches can tell you -- set up a work effort you can sustain. Same thing here. So, how about we figure out who here is interested, then start off: get the code, see if it builds. Who's in? Don't feel out of your depth: if you can type mk, you're ready to start. Don't assume it's a slog through code: take time to alternate looking at code, and reading docs. Do learn how to use something like qemu -- it's a real timesaver, since you can debug the kernel interactively. Don't kill yourself if you hit a wall about some code -- bring it here, and ask questions. That's why we're here. So, Step 1: anyone? anyone? Thanks Ron On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 7:22 AM Daniel Maslowski via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > There have been other ideas in similar directions over the years. > E.g. > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342759611_SCE-Comm_A_Real-Time_Inter-Core_Communication_Framework_for_Strictly_Partitioned_Multi-core_Processors > about the concepts of ACs and CCs (communication cores). > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, 01:49 Charles Forsyth, <charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> i think brazil experimented with networking outside the kernel but it was >> pushed back in >> >> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 at 00:24, Thaddeus Woskowiak <tswoskow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 1:03 PM Bakul Shah via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Jan 4, 2025, at 9:35 AM, Stuart Morrow <morrow.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> This has been a very interesting discussion, thanks all. My offer >>> > >> remains: if anyone wants to revive NIX, I am happy to help. >>> > > >>> > > Am I the only one who sees that the Fastcall stuff would be good for >>> > > bringing some devices out of the kernel (that are devs only for >>> > > performance reasons)? >>> > > >>> > > And then, closer to what Fastcall was actually for (fossil and >>> > > venti>disk), you also have ??fs>nusb/disk>disk, which could always do >>> > > with a speedup. >>> > >>> > I've been meaning to ask... What is the typical *overhead* of a 9p >>> > call to a user level driver compared to a kernel based driver? >>> >>> From what I know the only performance issue for 'user-space <-> >>> kernel-space' 9P are context switches. IP is in-kernel to eliminate >>> context switches for ether(3) <-> ip(3). > > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7692a612f26c8ec5-M27f7a378f6816d94910702d6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
