Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!...@cs.vu.nl
From: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: MINIX for the 386
Message-ID: <1836@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 20 Dec 88 14:50:13 GMT
Sender: a...@cs.vu.nl
Reply-To: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 73


The subject of the 386 has come up several times recently.  It is my
understanding that 1.3 should work on most vanilla 386 boxes.  However, the
question remains about virtual memory, using protected mode, etc.  Some
thoughts on the subject.

It is very unlikely that MINIX 2.0 will go native on the x86 (x=2, 3).  It
will be enough work just incorporating all the recent (and future) fixes,
software etc. and having a go at POSIX compatibility.  My goal is still to
keep it simple enough for students to understand it.

With respect to others who want to hack it to use paging etc., I would suggest
keeping the following firmly in mined.  The 386 developers are free to change
everything everywhere and then distribute diffs against 1.3.  However, at some
point in the future, 1.3 may be considered obsolete, and people will want
diffs against 2.0.  The best way to make sure this is not a huge amount of
work is to be conservative and change as little as possible, and make those
changes as localized as possible.  For example, I would suggest forgetting
about mapping files into the address space as it requires major changes to
the file system.  Similarly, I would forget 16 of the 386's 48 address bits
and just concentrate on making a virtual memory system that uses a single
32-bit segment.  In effect, this simulates the 68020, and should make porting
to 68020 (68030) systems straightforward.  I would also suggest really making
an effort to resist changing anything that doesn't really have to be changed
in the name of compatibility.  For example, the whole business of keeping
track of memory in clicks is probably viable if you just set the click to the
page size instead of 16 bytes.

Files that have only a few changes should be marked #ifdef i386 in analogy
with the current #ifdef i8088.  Avoid using #else, since #ifdef may be any of
8088, 80386, Atari, and (eventually) Amiga.  Try to put large chunks of new
code as procedures in a separate file.  Thus I can imagine some procedures
becoming:

xxx()
{
#ifdef i386
   foobar()
   return;
#endif

  ... original code ...
}

or something like that.  If whole files have to be replaced, just replace
them and change the makefile.

In short, I am making a plea for making an effort to take compatibility fairly
seriously, and make as few changes as possible, and make these as cleanly as
possible so that they can be transferred to 2.0 when the time comes.   In 
principle I am willing to make the 386 stuff a permanent part of the system,
but only if it fits in well.  The Atari FS and MM are examples of where this
has happened.  The changes needed for the Atari are minor, so there is one
FS that is good on PC and ST, and one MM for PC and ST.  This is not true of
the kernel unfortunately.  Looking at the 1.3 FS and MM is a worthwhile
exercise.

The Vrije Universiteit is going to start working on a 386 compiler soon.
Whether this will fit on the 8088 is as yet unknown.  We have an ANSI standard
C compiler, and it definitely does not fit in the 64K + 64K model, so 2.0
will continue to use the K&R-compatible compiler now in use, at least for the
8088.

The 286 has such an awful architecture that I am not inclined to cater to it
at all, despite the fact that my own machine is a 286 and our department has
a room full of them.

Another thing: please stick to the original programming style in terms of
layout, comments etc.  It looks funny to have mixed styles all over the place.
I posted a document on MINIX-style some time ago and can send a copy to
anyone who missed it.

Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)

Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
bloom-beacon!think!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!munnari!
otc!metro!ipso!runx!brucee
From: bru...@runx.ips.oz (Bruce Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Minix on 386 machines
Message-ID: <1912@runx.ips.oz>
Date: 27 Dec 88 05:31:22 GMT
References: <5998@louie.udel.EDU> <15061@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: bru...@runx.OZ (Bruce Evans)
Organization: RUNX  Un*x Timeshare. Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 67

I now have Minix working well in protected mode on the 386. The main limits
are that segments are still 64K and no use is made of paging. I have some
support for 32 bit executables and a 32 bit compiler to produce these
(and itself) within the old limit of 64K text and 64K data. The 64K limit
will eventually vanish when mpx88.s and klib88.s are rewritten and
kernel/mm/fs are recompiled with 32 bit sizes.

I plan to post the changes necessary for the 16 bit protected mode system
sometime in January (after my RS232 stuff). These will provide increased
system reliability and access to lots of memory. This should be valuable
even without 32 bit sizes. The diffs may be a lot smaller than for RS232,
but my kernel diffs are now 237K (counting RS232) and I'm concerned about 
separating what's needed. Also, there is a fair amount of 386 assembler
(much easier to work with than 286) which will have to be reduced to asld's
level. (Does asld even have the '&', '|' C operators? I don't think it
has #if.)

The system retains the ability to run unprotected and configures this way
automatically for 286's and 88's (apart from *wini.c). Because of this, I
haven't worried much about putting #ifdef i80386 everywhere it belongs.
The cost is 5 to 10K of unused code/data on an 88, and (very) few extra
decisions at run time based on the 'processor' variable. My debugger
(just posted) works on the protected mode and 32 bit code by switching to
real mode, limited to addresses below 1M. Apart from this, real mode is not
used so the system could be made to run 286 protected mode by modifying
the TSS structure and eliminating the 386 assembler code.

Techical details
----------------

Users   run at privilege 3
Servers                  1
Interrupt handlers       0

Servers could be run at privilege 0 with less interrupt latency but the
level switch gives a convenient stack frame (straight into proc table - less
dangerous than on 88). I have an out of date version which does task
switching. This is superficially nicer, perhaps not requiring any assembler
in interrupt handlers, but what I wrote came out larger and slower (context
switch 10-20% slower. Protected mode switching is already 10-20% slower).
Minix centralizes the task switching, unlike the hardware.

The process table has extra entries for FSREG, GSREG and all register slots
are expanded to longs. The process table also holds the LDT register
(constant after init) and a 2 entry LDT to hold segment descriptors for code
and data.

New kernel files:
const386.h - addendum to const.h
pm.c - mainly initialization of GDT entries and interrupt handler stubs (asm)

Changed kernel files:
mpx88.s - 8088 version already rewritten, new savep and restartp
klib88.s - everywhere it uses physical addresses redone directly (flat 4G seg)
system.c - fork and exec need to build segment descriptors. This is the main
           dynamic difference and is "simple".
proc.c - "unnecessary" large changes supported by mpx88.s
clock.c - "unnecessary" small changes supported by mpx88.s
others - minor changes in const.h, proc.h, type.h, dmp.c, main.c ...

Changed mm/fs/lib files:
A new magic number in the exec header for 386 executables has to be fetched
and passed to the kernel so the 32-bit bit can be set if required. Both
mm and fs have to ask kernel about memory allocation.

Bruce Evans
Internet: bru...@runx.ips.oz.au    UUCP: uunet!runx.ips.oz.au!brucee

Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
bloom-beacon!think!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!munnari!
otc!metro!ipso!runx!brucee
From: bru...@runx.ips.oz (Bruce Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX for the 386
Message-ID: <1914@runx.ips.oz>
Date: 27 Dec 88 05:39:43 GMT
References: <1836@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: bru...@runx.OZ (Bruce Evans)
Organization: RUNX  Un*x Timeshare. Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 19

I think my 386 port follows Andy's guidelines well. My diffs for mm are only
6K, and for fs only 2K, and most of this is for stuff done non-portably in
the first place. I don't think we have benefited enough from the Atari port
though. Changing the click size from 16 to 256 didn't quite work since there
is some segment arithmetic also using the magic 16.

I would like to see a summary of PC/Atari Minix kernel differences (except
drivers). And are the mm/fs/commands really much the same? There seem to
be a lot of old PC bugs cropping up again in the Atari postings.

The Minix coding style guidelines did not reach here. Please repost them.
I have some problems with the style, mainly indenting a full tab stop at
a time and contortions to avoid this going off the page, and the ugliness
that has crept in from not updating comments with the code (ornate comments
tend to produce larger diffs than code). Also, elle with linewrap wraps at
column 78, messing up the formatting.

Bruce Evans
Internet: bru...@runx.ips.oz.au    UUCP: uunet!runx.ips.oz.au!brucee

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/