path: root/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/arm_port.mdwn

[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
Inc."]]

[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]

Several people have expressed interested in a port of GNU/Hurd for the ARM
architecture.


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-28

    <mcsim> Has anyone heard about porting hurd and gnu/mach to arm
      architecture?
    <braunr> mcsim: i think so
    <braunr> mcsim: why are you asking ?
    <mcsim> I found an article where author stated that he has ported hurd to
      arm, but I have never met this information before.
    <mcsim> He wrote ethernet driver and managed to use ping command
    <mcsim> author's name is Sartakov Vasily
    <braunr> well that's possible, a long time ago
    <braunr> and it was probably not complete enough to be merged upstream
    <braunr> like many other attempts at many other things
    <mcsim> Not so long. Article is dated by June 2011.
    <braunr> do you have a link ?
    <mcsim> Yes, but it is in Russian.
    <braunr> oh
    <braunr> well i don't remember him sharing that with us
    <antrik> mcsim: he did some work on porting Mach, but AIUI never got it
      nearly finished
    <antrik> nowadays he does L4 stuff
    <antrik> was also at FOSDEM


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-10-09

    <mcsim> bootinfdsds: There was an unfinished port to arm, if you're
      interested.
    <tschwinge> mcsim: Has that ever been published?
    <mcsim> tschwinge: I don't think so. But I have an email of that person and
      I think that this could be discussed with him.


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-10-10

    <tschwinge> mcsim: If you have a contact to the ARM porter, could you
      please ask him to post what he has?
    <antrik> tschwinge: we all have the "contact" -- let me remind you that he
      posted his questions to the list...


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-10-17

    <mcsim> tschwinge: Hello. The person who I wrote regarding arm port of
      gnumach still hasn't answered. And I don't think that he is going to
      answer.


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-11-15

    <matty3269> Well, I have a big interest in the ARM architecture, I worked
      at ARM for a bit too, and I've written my own little OS that runs on
      qemu. Is there an interest in getting hurd running on ARM?
    <braunr> matty3269: not really currently
    <braunr> but if that's what you want to do, sure
    <tschwinge> matty3269: Well, interest -- sure!, but we don't really have
      people savvy in low-level kernel implementation on ARM.  I do know some
      bits about it, but more about the instruction set than about its memory
      architecture, for example.
    <tschwinge> matty3269: But if you're feeling adventurous, by all means work
      on it, and we'll try to help as we can.
    <tschwinge> matty3269: There has been one previous attempt for an ARM port,
      but that person never published his code, and apparently moved to a
      different project.
    <tschwinge> matty3269: I can help with toolchains (GCC, etc.) things for
      ARM, if there's need.
    <matty3269> tschwinge: That sounds great, thanks! Where would you recommend
      I start (at the moment I've got Mach checked out and am trying to get it
      compiled for i386)
    <matty3269> I'm guessing that the Mach micro-kernel is all that would need
      to be ported or are there arch-dependant bits of code in the server
      processes?
    <tschwinge> matty3269:
      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/system_port.html has some
      information.  Mach is the biggest part, yes.  Then some bits in glibc and
      libpthread, and even less in the Hurd libraries and servers.
    <tschwinge> matty3269: Basically, you'd need equivalents for the i386 (and
      similar) directories, yep.
    <tschwinge> Though, you may be able to avoid some cruft in there.
    <tschwinge> Does building for x86 have any issues?
    <tschwinge> matty3269: How is generally your understanding of the Hurd on
      Mach system architecture, and on microkernel-based systems generally, and
      on Mach in particular?
    <matty3269> tschwinge: yes, it seems to be progressing... I've got mig
      installed and it's just compiling now
    <matty3269> hmm, not too great if I'm honest, I've done mostly monolithic
      kernel development so having such low-level processes, such as
      scheduling, done in user-space seems a little strinage
    <tschwinge> Ah, yes, MIG will need a little bit of porting, too.  I can
      help with that, but that's not a priority -- first you have to get Mach
      to boot at all; MIG will only be needed once you need to deal with RPCs,
      so user-land/kernel interaction, basically.  Before, you can hack around
      it.
    <matty3269> tschwinge: I have been running a GNU/Hurd system for a while
      now though
    <tschwinge> I'm happy to tell you that the schedules is still in the
      kernel.  ;-)
    <tschwinge> OK, good, so you know about the basic ideas.
    <braunr> matty3269: there has to be machine specific stuff in user space
    <braunr> for initial thread contexts for example
    <matty3269> tschwinge: Ok, just got gnumach built
    <braunr> but there isn't much and you can easily base your work from the
      x86 implementation
    <tschwinge> Yes.  Mach itself is the more difficult one.
    <matty3269> braunr: Yeah, looking around at things, it doesn't seem that
      there will be too much work involoved in the user-space stuff
    <tschwinge> braunr: Do you know off-hand whether there are some old Mach
      research papers describing architecture ports?
    <tschwinge> I know there are some describing the memory system (obviously),
      and I/O system -- which may help matty3269 to understand the general
      design/structure.
    <tschwinge> We might want to identify some documents, and make a list.
    <braunr> all mach related documentation i have is available here:
      ftp://ftp.sceen.net/mach/
    <braunr> (also through http://)
    <tschwinge> matty3269: Oh, definitely I'd suggest the Mach 3 Kernel
      Principles book.  That gives a good description of the Mach architecture.
    <matty3269> Great, that's my weekends reading then!
    <braunr> you don't need all that for a port
    <matty3269> Is it possible to run the gnumach binary standalone with qemu?
    <braunr> you won't go far with it
    <braunr> you really need at least one program
    <braunr> but sure, for a port development, it can easily be done
    <braunr> i'd suggest writing a basic static application for your tests once
      you reach an advanced state
    <braunr> the critical parts of a port are memory and interrupts
    <braunr> and memory can be particularly difficult to implement correctly
    <tschwinge> matty3269: I once used QEMU's
      virtual-FAT-filesystem-from-a-directory-on-the-host, and configured GRUB
      to boot from that one, so it was easy to quickly reboot for kernel
      development.
    <braunr> but the good news is that almost every bsd system still uses a
      similar interface
    <tschwinge> matty3269: And, you may want to become familiar with QEMU's
      built-in gdbserver, and how to connect to and use that.
    <braunr> so, for example, you could base your work from the netbsd/arm pmap
      module
    <tschwinge> matty3269: I think that's better than starting on real
      hardware.
    <braunr> tschwinge: you can use -kernel with a multiboot binary now

[[hurd/running/qemu#multiboot]].

    <braunr> tschwinge: and even creating iso images is so fast it's not any
      slower

    <braunr> ah, the gnumach executable is a correct elf image
    <matty3269> Is there particular reason that mach is linked at 0xc0100000?
    <matty3269> or is that where it is expected to be in VM>
    <tschwinge> That's my understanding.
    <braunr> kernels commmonly sti at high addresses
    <braunr> that's the "standard" 3G/1G split for user/kernel space
    <matty3269> I think Linux sits at a similar VA for 32-bit
    <braunr> no
    <matty3269> Oh, I thought it did, I know it does on ARM, the kernel is
      mapped to 0xc000000 
    <braunr> i don't know arm, but are you sure about this number ?
    <braunr> seems to lack a 0
    <matty3269> Ah, yes sorry
    <matty3269> so 0xC0000000
    <braunr> 0xc0100000 is just 1 MiB above it
    <braunr> the .text section of linux on x86 actually starts at c1000000
      (above 16 MiB, certainly to preserve as much dma-able memory since modern
      machines now have a lot more)
    <matty3269> so with gnumach, does the boot-up sequence use PIC until VM is
      active and the kernel mapped to the linking address?
    <braunr> no
    <braunr> actually i'm not certain of the details
    <braunr> but there is no PIC
    <braunr> either special sections are linked at physical addresses
    <braunr> or it relies on the fact that all executable code uses near jumps
    <braunr> and uses offsets when accessing data
    <braunr> (which is why the kernel text is at 3 GiB + 1 MiB, and not 3 GiB)
    <matty3269> hmm,
    <braunr> but you shouldn't worry about that i suppose, as the protocol
      between the boot loader and an arm kernel will certainly not be the saem
    <braunr> same*
    <matty3269> indeed, ARM is tricky because memory maps are vastly differnt
      on every platform


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-11-21

    <matty3269> Well, I have a ARM gnumach kernel compiled. It just doesn't
      run! :)
    <braunr> matty3269: good luck :)


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-01-30

    <slpz> Hi, i've read there's an ongoing effort to port GNU Mach to ARM. How
      is it going?
    <braunr> not sure where you read that
    <braunr> but i'm pretty sure it's not started if it exists
    <slpz> braunr: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/arm_port.html
    <braunr> i confirm what i said
    <slpz> braunr: OK, thanks. I'm interested on it, and didn't want to
      duplicate efforts.
    <braunr> little addition: it may have started, but we don't know about it


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-18

    <Hooligan0> as i understand ; on startup, vm_resident.c functions configure
      the whole available memory ; but at this point the system does not split
      space for kernel and space for future apps
    <Hooligan0> when pages are tagged to be used by userspace ?
    <braunr> Hooligan0: at page fault time
    <braunr> the split is completely virtual, vm_resident deals with physical
      memory only
    <Hooligan0> braunr: do you think it's possible to change (at least)
      pmap_steal_memory to mark somes pages as kernel-reserved ?
    <braunr> why do you want to reserve memory ?
    <braunr> and which memory ?
    <Hooligan0> braunr: first because on my mmu i have two entry points ; so i
      want to set kernel pages into a dedicated space that never change on
      context switch (for best cache performance)
    <Hooligan0> braunr: and second, because i want to use larger pages into
      kernel (1MB) to reduce mmu work
    <braunr> vm_resident isn't well suited for large pages :(
    <braunr> i don't see the effect of context switch on kernel pages
    <Hooligan0> at many times, context switch flush caches
    <braunr> ah you want something like global pages on x86 ?
    <Hooligan0> yes, something like
    <braunr> how is it done on arm ?
    <Hooligan0> virtual memory is split into two parts depending on msb bits
    <Hooligan0> for example 3G/1G
    <Hooligan0> MMU will use two pages tables depending on vaddr (hi-side or
      low-side)
    <braunr> hi is kernel, low is user ?
    <Hooligan0> so, for the moment i've put mach at 0xC0000000 -> 0xFFFFFFFF  ;
      and want to use 0x00000000 -> 0xBFFFFFFF for userspace
    <Hooligan0> yes
    <braunr> ok, that's what is done for x86 too
    <Hooligan0> 1MB pages for kernel ; and 4kB (or 64kB) pages for apps
    <braunr> i suggest you give up the large page stuff
    <braunr> well, you can use them for the direct physical mapping, but for
      kernel objects, it's a waste
    <braunr> or you can rewrite vm_resident to use something like a buddy
      allocator but it's additional work
    <Hooligan0> for the moment it's waste ; but with some littles changes this
      allow only one level of allocation mapping ;  -i think- it's better for
      performances
    <braunr> Hooligan0: it is, but not worth it
    <Hooligan0> will you allow changes into vm_resident if i update i386 too ?
    <braunr> Hooligan0: sure, as long as these are relevant and don't introduce
      regressions
    <Hooligan0> ok
    <braunr> Hooligan0: i suggest you look at x15, since you may want to use it
      as a template for your own changes
    <braunr> as it was done for the slab allocator for example
    <braunr> e.g. x15 already uses a buddy allocator for physical memory