Slashdot Mirror
Computer Science Curriculum Using Linux?
I couldn't resist posting this question from Kris Warkentin: "I am helping a professor at my school develop some projects for a third-year Operating Systems course. I told him that Linux would be good for that sort of thing, both as an example and as fodder for development. It is a single term (13 weeks) and students in Computer Science, while competent, are not exactly experienced programming wizards like Alan Cox. So, the question is, does anyone know of any nice little Linux-based programming projects which would give a feel for the OS internals? Maybe some of you have actually taken a course where you wrote a device driver or something? Any ideas or suggestions would be welcome."
This is a real cool idea. Are there any other schools doing something like this with Linux?
I just finished a course like this. We used RedHat
5.2 (with a nice, relatively simple 2.0.x kernel
that reduced the learning curve a bit). We had two
kernel programming assignments:
1) Add process scheduling groups.
We added a couple new system calls that allowed processes to create and then join new
scheduling groups. You could set priorities for group member processes and then any time one
member of the group came up, the highest priority TASK_RUNNING process in the group would
be selected to run instead. This lead to pretty useless behaviour but didn't involve anything
other than adding to the scheduler, so you didn't screw up the behaviour of non-group-member
processes.
2) Add a new in-RAM filesystem to the kernel.
We had to add a 128K in-RAM volatile (your data disappears when you unmount the fs) filesystem to
the kernel. This was nice because you didn't have to create any user-space tools (other than
your own version of mount). When you mounted one of these filesystems the kernel allocated
128K and created your filesystem on it. You could mount as many as you wanted and use them
just like any chunk of disk space. This was a great way to learn the basics of Linux' rather
cool VFS.
Neither of these projects was hugely difficult but
they weren't trivial either. We also had to write
some basic kernel functionality benchmarks and
compare Linux 2.0/Sparc (our systems) vs. some
Solaris/UltraSparc systems. That was interesting
as well. This was a great course, so long as you
liked alot of programming.
When I taught our (UNC-Charlotte's CSCI) graduate operating systems course, assmuming that the students had already received an undergraduate OS course (sadly, sometimes too hopeful of an assumption) which covered the core basics of memory management, process management, context swtching, and introduces the two-layer device driver approach (our undergraduate course uses the XINU book), I picked up where that course left off, covering more about device drivers, I/O descriptors and their interaction with system calls, the filesystem (on-disk implementations, kernel implementations, different implementations at different mountpoints), then finishing off with distributed systems. One large component of the course was reading the Linux kernel source code in order to see a "real world" implementation of the coding concepts discussed in class. I have aways been a critic of how too many CSCI courses focus solely upon writing projects, yet don't spend enough (or any) time having the students read non-trivial code. We wouldn't ask novelists-in-training, essayists-in-training, or poets-in-training to write more than we've asked them to read, would we?
Anyway, two series of projects accompanied the lectures and assigned code readings. The first was to design and implement a basic interactive shell, first with basic file redirection and piping, later adding redirection to TCP sockets. This project aimed at giving the students a taste of systems programming that they may not have otherwise received, plus hammering in the UNIX concept that read() / write() will work on any sort of descriptor, be it pipe, file, or socket; even without the knowledge / cooperation of the process doing the I/O. At the time of writing the projects, the students were to read though the kernel code which implements the major system calls that they were using in order to see what was really going on (or at least to get a general idea that it all wasn't magic -- it all boiled down to "C" source code somewhere).
The second project suite was the implementation of an inode-based filesystem, starting from the ground up. First write a simulated mini-SCSI bus that supported two types of devices (one with 512-byte sectors, the other with 4096-byte sectors, just to ward off assumptions at the inode/block management layer). Once that works, add an inode manager that can use one of the virtual SCSI disks. Lastly, add a directory services module on top of the inode manager, so that we can manipulate files, directories, and symbolic links.
Ultimately, the projects asked a good deal from the students, as that the majority of them had not written any multi-threaded OO systems that made use of message passing (over the SCSI "bus"), so not only did they get to simulate some kernel components, they also had to come up to speed with some relatively advanced programming designs. The folks who used C++ learned the hard way that (at the time) debugger support for multithreaded programs was, um, challenged. Folks who wrote in Java had a bit of an easier time. Depending upon the level of knowledge in your undergraduates, I would not recommend the filesystem project. The shell project, OTOH, would be applicable to either 3'rd/4'th year undergraduates or graduate students, as that it hits home on the core UNIX datastructure -- the I/O descriptor. If the students were to have root access to the boxes, then I would have them perhaps extend an existing kernel subsystem or to write a new driver given an existing one. What about a thorough examination of the Linux scheduler / context switching algorithm. Could they cut any fat from it, as the IBM JDK folks did? What about examining the timer system? What about implementing a new "toy" virtual device driver, such as /dev/random (not that it is a toy, but that it doesn't correspond to any single piece of hardware, per se), such as a simple message passing port? One process opens it up, writes to it, then closes, followed by another process opening it and reading from it. That would demonstrate upper-layer device driver interfaces, plus the issue of passing bulk data to/from user space, and why time spent memcpy'ing becomes a factor in I/O bound systems.
Oh yeah, one other thing. You might want to think about obtaining the source code for more than one OS kernel (say also a *BSD kernel or the Solaris kernel -- being at an institution of higher learning, you should be able to get the Solaris source code w/o charge) in order to have the students compare / constrast the different approaches taken.
Have fun with the course!
I took the CMU OS course as a junior all those many years ago... And I must say that it was quite possibly the most educational CS course I have taken.
As aheitner posted above, it runs using specialized emulatorsm not to make the architecture more manageable, but as a sandbox or virutal machine for the OS you are writing.
When I took OS, there were 3 projects:
1) write a basic priority based scheduler. Time: 2 weeks, solo project.
2) Write a kernel. Time: 6 weeks, solo project. In reality it took three weeks of constant coding. We implemented ISR's, memory management, fork, exec, wait, sleep, read, write, malloc, and another 10 basic OS functions I cannot remember. I wrote a kernel.
3) Complete Filesystem. Time: 4 weeks, with a partner. We wrote a complete filesystem
The projects varied depending on who the professor was for that semester. The other semesters projects were all partner oriented which allowed them the time to do things like terminals/shells and kernel threads.
I do not understand why people are looking for projects that tweak the OS itself, or add to it. I learned so much about OS and about myself and my abilities by having a 6 page project spec dumped in my lap and being told "here ya go. Have fun. You have the TA's office hours."
It's like learning to drive a car. Sure there's a manual that you can study, and you can sit in the drivers seat for a while and play with the blinkers and the wind sheild wipers while going "vroom! vroom!" but unless you have someone force you to learn to drive, you'll never know how good your skills really are.
Talking about advanced capabilites in an OS course is all well and good, but save it for grad courses. An undergrad course should be about the kernel and basic resource management.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.