xv6-public VS janet

+1 for mini operating system.

Us, application developers, rely on many OS features: memory management, filesystem, etc. I'm sure eventually we'll ask "how such things are done behind the scene?"

That's why I tinker with xv6 (https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-public) during sparetime. Learning various process scheduling algorithms from textbook is a thing. Implementing it is another thing. I learn a lot. And it's definitely fun, even though there's almost zero chance the knowledge gained is relevant for my job (I'm a mobile app dev).

Recently I compiled xv6 using gcc 7.5.0 on Ubuntu 18 , everything is ok. But when I try to compile it using gcc 13.2.1 on latest Arch, it's failed: result

https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-public has under 10,000 lines of C and assembly including some user space programs.

xv6 was originally written for 32-bit x86; the RISC-V port is a relatively recent development. See e.g. https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-public for some of the earlier history.

rxv64 was written for a specific purpose: we had to ramp up professional engineers on both 64-bit x86_64 and kernel development in Rust; we were pointing them to the MIT materials, which at the time still focused on x86, but they were getting tripped up 32-bit-isms and the original PC peripherals (e.g., accessing the IDE disk via programmed IO). Interestingly, the non sequitur about C++ aside, porting to Rust exposed several bugs or omissions in the C original; fixes were contributed back to MIT and applied to the original (and survived into the RISC-V port).

Oh, by the way, the use of the term "SMP" predates Intel's usage by decades.

I'd define an arena as the pattern where the arena itself owns N objects. So you free the arena to free all objects.

My first job was at EA working on console games (PS2, GameCube, XBox, no OS or virtual memory on any of them), and while at the time I was too junior to touch the memory allocators themselves, we were definitely not malloc-ing and freeing all the time.

It was more like you load data for the level in one stage, which creates a ton of data structures, and then you enter a loop to draw every frame quickly. There were many global variables.

---

Wikipedia calls it a region, zone, arena, area, or memory context, and that seems about right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region-based_memory_management

It describes history from 1967 (before C was invented!) and has some good examples from Apache ("pools") and Postgres ("memory contexts").

I also just looked at these codebases:

https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-public (based on code from the 70's)

https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM (1997)

I looked at allocproc() in xv6, and gives you an object from a fixed global array. A lot of C code in the 80's and 90's was essentially "kernel code" in that it didn't have an OS underneath it. Embedded systems didn't run on full-fledges OSes.

DOOM tends to use a lot of what I would call "pools" -- arrays of objects of a fixed size, and that's basically what I remember from EA.

Though in g_game.c, there is definitely an arena of size 0x20000 called "demobuffer". It's used with a bump allocator.

---

So I'd say

- malloc / free of individual objects was NEVER what C code looked like (aside from toy code in college)

- arena allocators were used, but global vars and pools are also very common.

- arenas are more or less wash for memory safety. they help you in some ways, but hurt you in others.

The reason C programmers don't malloc/free all the time is for speed, not memory safety. Arenas are still unsafe.

When you free an arena, you have no guarantee there's nothing that points to it anymore.

Also, something that shouldn't be underestimated is that arena allocators break tools like ASAN, which use the malloc() free() interface. This was underscored to me by writing a garbage collector -- the custom allocator "broke" ASAN, and that was actually a problem:

https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/01/garbage-collector.html

If you want memory safety in your C code, you should be using ASAN (dynamically instrumented allocators) and good test coverage. Arenas don't help -- they can actually hurt. An arena is a trivial idea -- the problem is more if that usage pattern actually matches your application, and apps evolve over time.

Magma is proudly licensed under the MIT license, and uses code from Xv6 and Yagura.

My OS classes used xv6, a reimplementation of Unix Version 6 for a RISC-V architecture. Accompanying that was the OSTEP textbook.

Check out xv6 if you are only getting started with operating systems and want something simpler.

Here is kernel.ld.

Seems like a perfect use-case for Janet. (https://janet-lang.org/) A fast minimal VM like Lua, but even more extensible than Lua by being a "Lisp" with macro and C extension capabilities. Not a true Lisp, it's very pragmatic and performance-oriented. But it keeps the good stuff.

You might be looking for: https://janet-lang.org/

It comes with a build tool `jpm` which installs dependencies globally by default, but you can have it be installed in your project folder as well.

I like Clojure, but I never had any good opportunities to use it other than for a few small hobby projects. It is unfortunate that it is so huge with tons of dependencies and no simpler native implementation. I started looking at various LISPs and Schemes to find something lighter to use instead and ended up settling for Janet that I think is Clojure-like enough to be comfortable to use, but in a small native binary with no dependencies and can be embedded in other native programs. I am sure for big, real, projects that Clojure makes more sense, but for my hobby projects and scripts I do not think I will install it again. I am still happy for the things I learned from learning Clojure. It was a real eye-opener for an old OO-programmer.

https://janet-lang.org/

One might also check out Janet for quick scripting tasks.

https://janet-lang.org

Thanks!

I thought about another multiplatform, homoiconic, highly compact language: https://janet-lang.org/ (takes 803 kb on my machine).

It has no types though.

Racket is great, and if you like it you might find Rash interesting:

https://rash-lang.org/

Janet and Gerbil Scheme are also worth a look:

https://janet-lang.org/

https://cons.io/

Point here is that, for instance Janet language does not have cons / pair type but tuple (and so is lispoid, not lisp), but clearly this is sufficient for macros & hence seamless language construction: all you need is to be a lispoid although being a lisp gives another useful feature.