* Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
@ 2004-12-07 17:09 Richard C Bilson
2004-12-07 17:27 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard C Bilson @ 2004-12-07 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> All help welcome, I miss mk greatly.
Well, if that's all you miss, you can skip libthread and libdraw,
since mk doesn't need them.
If you want samterm or acme, though, that's a different story.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
2004-12-07 17:09 [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD Richard C Bilson
@ 2004-12-07 17:27 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2004-12-07 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Well, if that's all you miss, you can skip libthread and libdraw,
> since mk doesn't need them.
>
> If you want samterm or acme, though, that's a different story.
Well, I eventually just removed the sched_yield()s and the
#include <sched.h>
from both lib9/lock.c and lib9/sleep.c (from memory) and now I have a
working 'mk' and 'drawterm' (the latter a little scrappy, but
workable) and a whole lot of other less tested P9 tools.
Sure look good, but I prefer the real thing, when I can have it.
If anyone wants the minor modifications I made to plan9ports and
drawterm, please let me know.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
2004-12-07 18:22 ` William Josephson
2004-12-07 18:37 ` Micah Stetson
@ 2004-12-08 3:55 ` Lucio De Re
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2004-12-08 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> What do you mean by ``unrelated''? As I recall it is there so that
> the lock routines can yield the processor. I expect that sleep() is
> sufficient, but it is there for a reason.
Oh, I meant that the NetBSD header file didn't have anything in it
that resembled the use p9ports made of it. Just my ignorance, I have
to admit. Of course, NetBSD and multiprocessing are still in their
infancy.
As you suggest, NetBSD 2 may well be a more interesting target.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
2004-12-07 18:22 ` William Josephson
@ 2004-12-07 18:37 ` Micah Stetson
2004-12-08 3:55 ` Lucio De Re
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Micah Stetson @ 2004-12-07 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> > I can get most of the way there, but
> > <sched.h>
> > and
> > sched_yield()
> > concern me. The former seems quite unrelated to the 9ports altogether
> > and the latter does not appear in NetBSD (1.6.1, nearly up to date) at
> > all.
>
> What do you mean by ``unrelated''? As I recall it is there so that
> the lock routines can yield the processor. I expect that sleep() is
> sufficient, but it is there for a reason.
I don't know if this will help, but in attempting an
Inferno port to NetBSD a few months ago, replacing
sched_yield() with sleep(0) did weird things to interactive
performance. I don't recall the exact symptoms, but I
remember it made the system (at least the GUI) a pain to
use. At the time, I asked about alternatives on NetBSD's
tech-kern mailing list and was told that sched_yield()
was implemented in -current.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2004/03/10/0019.html
After that, my free time disappeared, so I haven't played
with it since.
Micah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
2004-12-07 9:03 Lucio De Re
@ 2004-12-07 18:22 ` William Josephson
2004-12-07 18:37 ` Micah Stetson
2004-12-08 3:55 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: William Josephson @ 2004-12-07 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:03:02AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
> I can get most of the way there, but
> <sched.h>
> and
> sched_yield()
> concern me. The former seems quite unrelated to the 9ports altogether
> and the latter does not appear in NetBSD (1.6.1, nearly up to date) at
> all.
What do you mean by ``unrelated''? As I recall it is there so that
the lock routines can yield the processor. I expect that sleep() is
sufficient, but it is there for a reason.
> For the record, I downloaded plan9-20040708.tar.gz which seems close
> to being the final word, if the web site is to be believed.
There has been additional work since, but that's the latest
that is in a releasable state. I expect the next one to support
FreeBSD 5.x and NetBSD 2 (assuming I have time).
-WJ
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
@ 2004-12-07 9:03 Lucio De Re
2004-12-07 18:22 ` William Josephson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2004-12-07 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
I can get most of the way there, but
<sched.h>
and
sched_yield()
concern me. The former seems quite unrelated to the 9ports altogether
and the latter does not appear in NetBSD (1.6.1, nearly up to date) at
all.
Also, there are no (ffork rendez)^-NetBSD.c routines and in my
ignorance I'm not sure which of Free- and Open-BSD is better suited (I
think the "rendez-" are identical, mind you).
For the record, I downloaded plan9-20040708.tar.gz which seems close
to being the final word, if the web site is to be believed.
All help welcome, I miss mk greatly.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-08 3:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-12-07 17:09 [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD Richard C Bilson
2004-12-07 17:27 ` Lucio De Re
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-12-07 9:03 Lucio De Re
2004-12-07 18:22 ` William Josephson
2004-12-07 18:37 ` Micah Stetson
2004-12-08 3:55 ` Lucio De Re
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).