[9fans] GSOC proposal for plan9

[yan cui <ccuiyyan@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

Dear all,

   I have noticed the comments of  Anthony Sorace and Quanstro in my GSOC
proposal. Thanks very much! Basically, there are three problems.
[1]. The timeline has the time of reading related documents and source
codes, but Anthony thinks it should be solved before the coding stage.
[Yan] I have removed the reading stage from the timeline and use the time
to write code and do some testing.

[2]. I did not add the considerations of testing and measurements.
[Yan] in the updated proposal, I add my idea of testing in the timeline
part.
Basically, I plan to write some code to stress the MCS lock in different
contention degree and see whether the MCS lock works as expected.
In addition, I plan to run some macro-benchmarks to test the performance of
MCS lock, and compared with the original TAS (test and set) implementation.
Quanstro, is that enough?

[3]. Should avoid the patent issue of the K42 system.
[Yan] For this problem, I do not have any idea right now. Do we need to
propose a different solution (from K42's MCS lock), but solve the same
problem (do not need to pass node data structure in the parameter)?

Please provide comments, and I will update my proposal accordingly.
Best Wishes!
Yan

--
Think big; Dream impossible; Make it happen.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1686 bytes --]