←back to thread

597 points pizlonator | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.016s | source
Show context
kragen ◴[] No.45135095[source]
Hmm, Fil-C seems potentially really important; there's a lot of software that only exists in the form of C code which it's important to preserve access to, even if the tradeoffs made by conventional C compilers (accepting large risks of security problems in exchange for a small improvement in single-core performance) have largely become obsolete.

The list of supported software is astounding: CPython, SQLite, OpenSSH, ICU, CMake, Perl5, and Bash, for example. There are a lot of things in that list that nobody is likely to ever rewrite in Rust.

I wonder if it's feasible to use Fil-C to do multitasking between mutually untrusted processes on a computer without an MMU? They're making all the right noises about capability security and nonblocking synchronization and whatnot.

Does anyone have experience using it in practice? I see that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45134852 reports a 4× slowdown or better.

The name is hilarious. Feelthay! Feelthay!

replies(8): >>45135151 #>>45135324 #>>45135967 #>>45137459 #>>45139406 #>>45139586 #>>45139998 #>>45140957 #
pizlonator ◴[] No.45135151[source]
> I wonder if it's feasible to use Fil-C to do multitasking between mutually untrusted processes on a computer without an MMU?

You could. That said, FUGC’s guts rely on OS features that in turn rely on an MMU.

But you could make a version of FUGC that has no such dependency.

As for perf - 4x is the worst case and that number is out there because I reported it. And I report worst case perf because that’s how obsessive I am about realistically measuring, and then fanatically resolving, perf issues

Fact is, I can live on the Fil-C versions of a lot of my favorite software and not tell the difference

replies(5): >>45135179 #>>45135182 #>>45135319 #>>45136221 #>>45136740 #
kragen ◴[] No.45135179[source]
Yeah, I meant to be clear that 4× was the worst case, and I think it's an impressive achievement already, and perfectly fine for almost everything. After all, running single-threaded software on an 8-core CPU is already an 8× slowdown, right? And people do that all the time!

What's the minimal code size overhead for FUGC?

replies(1): >>45135221 #
1. pizlonator ◴[] No.45135221[source]
> What's the minimal code size overhead for FUGC?

I don’t have good data on this.

The FUGC requires the compiler to emit extra metadata and that metadata is hilariously inefficient right now. I haven’t bothered to optimize it. And the FUGC implementation pulls in all of libpas even though it almost certainly doesn’t have to.

So I don’t know what minimal looks like right now

replies(2): >>45135301 #>>45138705 #
2. kragen ◴[] No.45135301[source]
I see, thanks!
3. gr4vityWall ◴[] No.45138705[source]
It's refreshing to see a honest, no-nonsense, not full of marketing-speak reply for once. Your replies on this thread have been great. :)