From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 12 03:03:09 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AA32129; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:03:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacybsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25C2A1448; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:03:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacybsd@gmail.com) Received: by pabqy3 with SMTP id qy3so13748063pab.3; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xPi0fgn+nciaU0B6g4dUBeT9fv5pjgTvTbnViViZ6lg=; b=ScljZ8jWU+DnedEgUbvBloOgld9yCZGTQBPoiHEKL3pGIn8CkD4RKG0jVa0oeYR6zs mnPf4/5c/4pyYwCPnR5cFdH3Lx0MHbelliUYJitd+RYGH7R+8mCK5OhWYlEXASs1SMRu kyU5GOzUqKyniEmLohf2U51TAS13OcmImj9uE0ipKcuD0yqoAnFimn2LcLw++u+bvx55 HXnmnWeYSFczx6GeB/DnsA8LPl8A6XRHrrg52PhbyV6UiCtPRrKDTqx/eFCt1ZcffDxK RnbK2mIwMnATHeGsP1x2q0F+bBKZV6TBlx5poow5SZhgoj/TL8bNh+nbPPSRJTh5b2DO riig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.133.36 with SMTP id oz4mr19610947pdb.65.1434078188519; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kmacybsd@gmail.com Received: by 10.66.236.36 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.236.36 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150610224654.GM86224@funkthat.com> <5E0E3EAE-F184-478F-B2A0-D3FAB71ADB20@gmail.com> <3FE09AEA-A7C9-4406-83D7-541C823BB416@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:08 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 63-A08C0Vrv2bBx6jCmwxr3NVtU Message-ID: Subject: Re: compiling parts of kernel in userland From: "K. Macy" To: Craig Rodrigues Cc: arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:03:09 -0000 On Jun 11, 2015 7:53 PM, "Craig Rodrigues" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:10 AM, K. Macy wrote: >> >> >> It's a horrible unmaintainable steaming pile. There are of course no >> objective metrics for such a statement without my wasting hours to go back >> and look through it to come up with a comprehensive explanation. So I >> imagine you'll want to debate this endlessly. > > > No, I'm not interested in debating endlessly. > > However, if you had some rough data points as to the downsides > of rump kernels, it would be very useful for others to know what the > problems are. You have a lot of knowledge, so it is nice to share > your experiences with others. > > I've read the whitepapers on rump kernels, and seen some of the > presentations on it. On the surface, the NetBSD developers who > have worked on rump seem like reasonable and smart folks who put a lot of > hard work into their project. If I didn't know any better, I would say their > stuff is good. > > If rump is hard to compile on FreeBSD, that is one valid point. > If you have other points besides, "it's a steaming pile", it would be nice > to hear your thoughts. Otherwise it sounds like "not invented in FreeBSD, so it sucks". > > I recently asked a similar question about xhyve (bhyve for OS X), > and got a simple succinct answer: > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/2015-June/003624.html > > That's really all that is needed. If it will take hours to gather that info, > then I agree, that is a waste of your time. I'd rather see you contribute > stuff to FreeBSD, possibly using this Github pull requests > using this workflow: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2015-April/055551.html The idea behind RUMP is of course sound and useful. And the implementation may well have improved dramatically since I last looked. However, my personal experience with much of NetBSD outside of the core kernel (xen, mach, SPARC, and perhaps RUMP) is that the code is really unpleasant to work with and not any sort of reusable framework beyond, perhaps, answering specific questions. Dillon had some sort of toy user space kernel a while back. If he he has maintained that it is very likely a better starting point. -K > :) > > -- > Craig > > > > -- > Craig >