We are installing applications into Fedora, using QEMU, for RISC-V instruction set. So, we boot the RISC-V version of Fedora v29 on QEMU v. 2.12.92. Then need to install Python dependencies, using pip3 and DNF. But it goes very slowly. Is there a faster way? Such as using Spike, or risvemu, etc?
QEMU's user-mode emulation is significantly faster than the system-mode emulation, and also has the advantage of avoiding virtualized IO. Debian provides an example of how to use this support transparently, there is probably similar support for your favorite distribution.
To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no system-mode simulation that is both faster than QEMU and supports enough of a platform to boot Linux.
Related
Is there any way to run a MIPS binary on a Linux x86/x86-x64 machine? I got some applications for Enigma2 set-top-boxes (which is also based on Linux) that I want to run on a x86/x86-64 machine. These plugins are only available for MIPS processors.
The keyword is "emulator". The most famous emulator is qemu which can pretty much emulate any architectures out there, but there are also lots of MIPS emulators on Linux that you can find in the Linux-MIPS wiki:
Open Virtual Platforms (OVP) OVPsim
GXemul
SimOS
Sulima
MIPSsim
MipsSim
SPIM
VMIPS
Virtutech Simics
SandUPSim
MPS
YAMS
MAME/MESS
MISSE
Cisco 7200 Simulator
QEMU
VirtualMIPS
Miep
MARS
QtMips
Note that there are full-system emulation (which is heavier) and user-mode emulation which emulates a single process. Depending on which type you need you must choose one, but qemu supports both
Full-system emulation: Run operating systems for any machine, on any supported architecture
User-mode emulation: Run programs for another Linux/BSD target, on any supported architecture
However performance will be terrible so you'll never want to run an app that need to be fast like a video decoder in a set-top-box. If the source is available then just recompile it
See Decompile / Run MIPS executable under x86_64 Ubuntu
Qemu could be your Messiah this time. I use it personally and it really saves a lot of pain using an FPGA.
https://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/QEMU
Of course, this isn't natively executing the MIPS binary on your computer. But I suppose that if you can find plugin of your app coded for MIPS processors, the app itself can be found for MIPS.
We are developing a multi-core processor with RISCV architecture.
We had already ported Linux for single-core RISCV processor and it is working on our own FPGA based board with busybox rootfs.
I want to port Linux for multi-core RISCV processor now.
My doubts are:
Whether the gnu-riscv-gcc toolchain available now supports multi-core?
Whether spike available now supports multi-core?
Should I make any change to the bbl bootloader (Berkely bootloader) to support multi-core?
What are the changes I should make for my single-core Linux kernel to support multi-core?
The current RISC-V ecosystem already supports SMP Linux.
No changes to the compiler are required for multicore.
Spike can simulate multicore when using the '-p' flag.
BBL supports multicore.
Before building linux, configure it to support SMP.
Any hiccups, are probably due to the toolchain out of sync with the newest privileged spec changes. Last Fall, users successfully built and ran multicore Linux on RISC-V.
This is all expected to work out of the box. My standard testing flow for Linux and QEMU pull requests is to boot a Fedora root filesystem on QEMU via Linux+BBL. Instructions can be found on the QEMU Wiki Article about RISC-V. This will boot in our "virt" board, which uses VirtIO based devices. These devices have standard upstream Linux drivers that are very well supported, so there isn't really any platform-level work to be done.
In addition to the standard VirtIO-based devices, SiFive has devices that are part of the Freedom SOC platform. If you platform differs significantly from SiFive's Freedom platform then you'll need some additional drivers in both Linux and BBL.
We maintain an out-of-tree version of the drivers we haven't cleaned up for upstream yet in freedom-u-sdk, which should give you a rough idea of how much work it is. Running make qemu in that repository will boot Linux on QEMU via BBL, and running make will show you how to flash an SD card image for the HiFive Unleashed board.
I'm working on a side project which requires me to configure and compile a tiny Linux System based on Ubuntu.
The result should be a tiny OS with the following features:
A Bootloader
A Kernel
A Process
A Thread
Miscellaneous (if possible)
A File System
Virtual memory
A Console
I read lots of documents about it, one of them being: http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~okeefe/p2b/buildMin/buildMin.html#toc3
I deleted the file system, and recompiled the kernel using make xconfig. I tried to deactivate modules and configurations many times, but it's not working for me.
How can I configure the kernel for the OS with only the features I listed above? What options can I disable or enable while still having a working system?
Having the Kernel very small is not important for Ubuntu, so maybe choosing Ubuntu is part of your problem. I would use as starting point what OpenWRT does. They do a good work making the Kernel small and it is easy to get started. OpenWrt Buildroot – Usage
try Linux From Scratch. It is a step by step approach on building a minimal Linux system from which you can evolve later on. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/.
Use Gentoo Linux distribution - it's great for practicing on creation of Linux systems. Gentoo has excellent setup documentation, for example about configuring the kernel.
And Gentoo is a little easier and faster to setup than Linux From Scratch (LFS). If you want to go deeper, then LFS may be a good learning step too.
I want to do kernel module programming. But, all sources tell that linux distributions patch the original kernel and that module codes might not run on them. If this is true, what should i do.I tried making lfs using ubuntu but errors cropped up at almost every step. I saw somewhere that arch, gentoo, Ubuntu Server without any packages selected during the installation, slackware, susestudio etc. are vanilla distributions. So, can i use them for module programming?
Please suggest keeping in mind that i need a GUI in the distribution.
Can this be followed?
PS: I have a intel core i3 processor and will be running the distros on vmware workstation.
If you want to program kernel modules then it doesn't matter which distribution you choose. You will need to be able to recompile the kernel from source and install a new kernel yourself. Even just for a kernel module you'll want to be able to compile the latest kernel and develop against that, otherwise you won't be able to get the module accepted in to mainline.
An alternative if the module is not to be released is to develop against a particular kernel version. In this instance then the choice of distribution should be chosen based on the target for the module - not the development environment.
So pick a distribution based on what you like:
1) Desktops - (GNOME, KDE, other)
2) Ease of use - (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc vs Arch, Gentoo)
3) Cutting edge vs Stable (Arch, Fedora vs Ubuntu vs Debian, Red Hat, CentOS)
Then head off to kernelbewbies to learn a bit about getting started with kernel programming (where to get the source, how to compile it). Then read Greg Kroah-Hartman's excellent book on linux device drivers. The interfaces will have changed (it's written about version 2.6 of the kernel and version 3.6 is currently being worked on). It can be found online here
You'll also want to learn how to use git. And more importantly how to use git to generate a patch and email it without messing it up! I don't have a website for this but a bit of googling will help.
In my Operating Systems class we are looking to modify a Linux kernel with some simple system calls of our own in C.
What would be a good distro suited for this purpose? We don't need any frills, no GUI, a vanilla kernel, etc. The more basic the better.
I was able to modify the kernel pretty easily using a minimal Gentoo install.
Just install gentoo, follow the installation instructions, then:
$ emerge gentoo-sources
$ emerge emacs
$ cd /usr/src/linux
In my operating systems course last semester we used User Mode Linux, the big advantage being that when you hose the system, you can simply kill the process with no risk to the host environment.
Adding/Modifying system calls is tedious but trivial regardless of the kernel you use. However the 2.6 kernel is significantly more massive and complex, so if you're going to be modifying the code in a significant way the older kernels are easier to work with and much better documented. (ie: easier to find books and references)
Happy hacking :)
archlinux++
but really.. gentoo, slack, and arch are all more-or-less good choices
Arch Linux provides a great platform for kernel development that is also very functional. If you learn to use pacman, it will actually make testing your kernel modifications quite easily and provides the sources and tools in a sane manner.
I do think that if you are serious about learning linux and kernel hacking, doing a Linux From Scratch install should be on your list. It's a great distro/book and will let you build the platform for development yourself.
On all distributions, you can install the vanilla kernel.org sources instead of the distribution-related kernel packages, which is probably a good idea anyway when you want to do kernel development.
However, you'll be in trouble when you want to use any recent distribution with non-2.6 kernels, because they often build libc6 in a way that it cannot run with 2.4. Additionally, a lot of the guts of hardware management (like udev) require fairly recent kernels.
Apart from that, using Debian gives you a barebone system, and installing your own kernels is a breeze with kernel-package.
I wouldn't necessarily say any particular distro is geared towards kernel development as such, but if you want a traditional Linux distro that doesn't pile too much custom configuration stuff between you and the kernel, Slackware is a decent choice.
My suggestion is to grab the latest kernel. There will be more debugging features inside it than in an older kernel. Also, older kernels would pretty much look just as complex as the most recent to the newbie.
As for the distribution itself, you can't really go wrong. If all you want is to try some custom system calls, then grab whatever mainstream distribution which gives you a nice development environment. Then compile and try your customized glibc without installing it over the distro's.
When choosing a distro for kernel development, remember that it's the kernel you want to hack, not the distro itself. You will therefor want an easy distro that stays out of your way as much as possible. Ubuntu says out of the way fairly nicely.
IANAKH
A non-linux alternative is Geek OS, but this is very much aimed at the educational level, and is not a practical kernel. It is ultra-simple though.
well I have found one called "minix" it isn't really a linux distro, but it was made specifically for teaching, but if you can only use a linux distro, then it shouldn't matter, I am pretty sure all distros have the same kernel
Gentoo if you dont mind automated compilation (most people think that gentoo is Linux From Scratch => you have to do everything on your own).
Arch if you have slower computer (laptop).
Biggest advantage of these two is that they have very very good documentation and only installing Gentoo f.e. gives you basic knowledge about init system and what services has to run. If one copy&paste commands from guide it's worthless though (luckily handbook makes people think a bit, thus preventing kids from installing gentoo and taking over our neat #irc) :D