I'm interested. Not 100% sure how much work I'll be able to do, but like you said, pace yourself and be consistent. :-)
Cheers, Chris On Sun, Jan 5, 2025, 08:39 Ron Minnich <rminn...@p9f.org> wrote: > 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-Me1851dafefdc22d8486190bd Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
