rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 185 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/synchronous_ipc.mdwn b/open_issues/synchronous_ipc.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 53d5d69d..00000000
--- a/open_issues/synchronous_ipc.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,185 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012 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]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-20
-
-From [[Genode RPC|microkernel/genode/rpc]].
-
-    <braunr> assuming synchronous ipc is the way to go (it seems so), there is
-      still the need for some async ipc (e.g signalling untrusted recipients
-      without risking blocking on them)
-    <braunr> 1/ do you agree on that and 2/ how would this low-overhead async
-      ipc be done ? (and 3/ are there relevant examples ?
-    <antrik> if you think about this stuff too much you will end up like marcus
-      and neal ;-)
-    <braunr> antrik: likely :)
-    <antrik> the truth is that there are various possible designs all with
-      their own tradeoffs, and nobody can really tell which one is better
-    <braunr> the only sensible one i found is qnx :/
-    <braunr> but it's still messy
-    <braunr> they have what they call pulses, with a strictly defined format
-    <braunr> so it's actually fine because it guarantees low overhead, and can
-      easily be queued
-    <braunr> but i'm not sure about the format
-    <antrik> I must say that Neal's half-sync approach in Viengoos still sounds
-      most promising to me. it's actually modelled after the needs of a
-      Hurd-like system; and he thought about it a lot...
-    <braunr> damn i forgot to reread that
-    <braunr> stupid me
-    <antrik> note that you can't come up with a design that allows both a)
-      delivering reliably and b) never blocking the sender -- unless you cache
-      in the kernel, which we don't want
-    <antrik> but I don't think it's really necessary to fulfill both of these
-      requirements
-    <antrik> it's up to the receiver to make sure it gets important signals
-    <braunr> right
-    <braunr> caching in the kernel is ok as long as the limit allows the
-      receiver to handle its signals
-    <antrik> in the Viengoos approach, the receiver can allocate a number of
-      receive buffers; so it's even possible to do some queuing if desired
-    <braunr> ah great, limits in the form of resources lent by the receiver
-    <braunr> one thing i really don't like in mach is the behaviour on full
-      message queues
-    <braunr> blocking :/
-    <braunr> i bet the libpager deadlock is due to that
-
-[[libpager_deadlock]].
-
-    <braunr> it simply means async ipc doesn't prevent at all from deadlocks
-    <antrik> the sender can set a timeout. blocking only happens when setting
-      it to infinite...
-    <braunr> which is commonly the case
-    <antrik> well, if you see places where blocking is done but failing would
-      be more appropriate, try changing them I'd say...
-    <braunr> it's not that easy :/
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-18
-
-    <lcc> what is the deepest design mistake of the HURD/gnumach?
-    <braunr> lcc: async ipc
-    <savask> braunr: You mentioned that moving to L4 will create problems. Can
-      you name some, please?
-    <savask> I thought it was going to be faster on L4
-    <braunr> the problem is that l4 *only* provides sync ipc
-    <braunr> so implementing async communication would require one seperated
-      thread for each instance of async communication
-    <savask> But you said that the deepest design mistake of Hurd is asynch
-      ipc.
-    <braunr> not the hurd, mach
-    <braunr> and hurd depends on it now
-    <braunr> i said l4 provides *only* sync ipc
-    <braunr> systems require async communication tools
-    <braunr> but they shouldn't be built entirely on top of them
-    <savask> Hmm, so you mean mach has bad asynch ipc?
-    <braunr> you can consider mach and l4 as two extremes in os design
-    <braunr> mach *only* has async ipc
-    <lcc> what was viengoos trying to explore?
-    * savask is confused
-    <braunr> lcc: half-sync ipc :)
-    <braunr> lcc: i can't tell you more on that, i need to understand it better
-      myself before any explanation attempt
-    <savask> You say that mach problem is asynch ipc. And L4's problem is it's
-      sync ipc. That means problems are in either of them!
-    <braunr> exactly
-    <lcc> how did apple resolve issues with mach?
-    <savask> What is perfect then? A "golden middle"?
-    <braunr> lcc: they have migrating threads, which make most rpc behave as if
-      they used sync ipc
-    <braunr> savask: nothing is perfect :p
-    <mcsim> braunr: but why async ipc is the problem?
-    <braunr> mcsim: it requires in-kernel buffering
-    <savask> braunr: Yes, but we can't have problems everywhere o_O
-    <braunr> mcsim: this not only reduces communication performance, but
-      creates many resource usage problems
-    <braunr> mcsim: and potential denial of service, which is what we
-      experience most of the time when something in the hurd fails
-    <braunr> savask: there are problems we can live with
-    <mcsim> braunr: But this could be replaced by userspace server, isn't it?
-    <braunr> savask: this is what monolithic kernels do
-    <braunr> mcsim: what ?
-    <braunr> mcsim: this would be the same, this central buffering server would
-      suffer from the same kind of issue
-    <mcsim> braunr: async ipc. Buffer can hold special server
-    <mcsim> But there could be created several servers, and queue could have
-      limit.
-    <braunr> queue limits are a problem
-    <braunr> when a queue limit is reached, you either block (= sync ipc) or
-      lose a message
-    <braunr> to keep messaging reliable, mach makes senders block
-    <braunr> the problem is that async ipc is often used to avoid blocking
-    <braunr> so blocking when you don't expect it can create deadlocks
-    <braunr> savask: a good compromise is to use sync ipc most of the time, and
-      async ipc for a few special cases, like signals
-    <braunr> this is what okl4 does if i'm right
-    <braunr> i'm not sure of the details, but like many other projects they
-      realized current systems simply need good support for async ipc, so they
-      extended l4 or something on top of it to provide it
-    <braunr> it took years of research for very smart people to get to some
-      consensus like "sync ipc is better but async is needed too"
-    <braunr> personaly i don't like l4 :/
-    <braunr> really not
-    <mcsim> braunr: Anyway there is some queue for messaging, but at the moment
-      if it overflows panics kernel. And with limited queue servers will panic.
-    <braunr> mcsim: it can't overflow
-    <braunr> mach blocks senders
-    <braunr> queuing basically means "block and possible deadlock" or "lose
-      messages and live with it"
-    <mcsim> So, deadlocks are still possible?
-    <braunr> of course
-    <braunr> have a look at the libpager debian patch and the discussion around
-      it
-    <braunr> it's a perfect example
-    <youpi> braunr: it makes gnu mach slow as hell sometimes, which I guess is
-      because all threads (which can ben 1000s) wake at the same time
-    <braunr> youpi: you mean are created ?
-    <braunr> because they'll have to wake in any case
-    <braunr> i can understand why creating lots of threads is slower, but
-      cthreads never destroyes kernel threads
-    <braunr> doesn't seem to be a mach problem, rather a cthreads one
-    <braunr> i hope we're able to remove the patch after pthreads are used
-
-[[libpthread]].
-
-    <mcsim> braunr: You state that hurd can't move to sync ipc, since it
-      depends on async ipc. But at the same time async ipc doesn't guarantee
-      that task wouldn't block. So, I don't understand why limited queues will
-      lead to more deadlocks?
-    <braunr> mcsim: async ipc can block because of queue limits
-    <braunr> mcsim: if you remove the limit, you remove the deadlock problem,
-      and replace it with denial of service
-    <braunr> mcsim: i didn't say the hurd can't move to sync ipc
-    <braunr> mcsim: i said it came to depend on async ipc as provided by mach,
-      and we would need to change that
-    <braunr> and it's tricky
-    <youpi> braunr: no, I really mean are woken. The timeout which gets dropped
-      by the patch makes threads wake after some time, to realize they should
-      go away. It's a hell long when all these threads wake at the same time
-      (because theygot created at the same time)
-    <braunr> ahh
-
-    <antrik> savask: what is perfect regarding IPC is something nobody can
-      really answer... there are competing opinions on that matter. but we know
-      by know that the Mach model is far from ideal, and that the (original) L4
-      model is also problematic -- at least for implementing a UNIX-like system
-    <braunr> personally, if i'd create a system now, i'd use sync ipc for
-      almost everything, and implement posix-like signals in the kernel
-    <braunr> that's one solution, it's not perfect
-    <braunr> savask: actually the real answer may be "noone knows for now and
-      it still requires work and research"
-    <braunr> so for now, we're using mach
-    <antrik> savask: regarding IPC, the path explored by Viengoos (and briefly
-      Coyotos) seems rather promising to me
-    <antrik> savask: and yes, I believe that whatever direction we take, we
-      should do so by incrementally reworking Mach rather than jumping to a
-      completely new microkernel...