I know that "virtio enables guests to get high performance network and disk operations". could you please explain for which type of applications we need to use virtio?
As your quoted description implies, you should use virtio drivers whenever you want better i/o performance than you would get with fully virtualized devices.
Generally, this means, "all the time", and you should simply use virtio drivers in all situations unless there is a specific reason you are unable to do so (for example, you are booting an operating system that does not have virtio device drivers available).
Particularly i/o intensive applications will obviously benefit the most from this optimization.
Related
I'm interested in the details of how operating systems work and perhaps writing my own.
From what I've gathered, the BIOS/UEFI is supposed to handle setting up the hardware, and do things like memory-mapping (or IO ports for) the graphics card and other IO devices like audio and ethernet.
My question is, how does the kernel know how to access and (re)configure these devices when it's passed control from the bootloader? Are there just conventions like 'the graphics card is always memory mapped from X to Y address space'? Are you at the mercy of a hardware manufacturer writing a driver for an operating system which knows how the hardware will be initialized?
That seems wrong, so maybe the kernel code includes instructions which somehow iterate through all the bus-connected devices. But what instructions can accomplish that? Is the PCI(e) controller also a memory-mapped device? How do you begin querying and setting up the system?
My primary reference has been the Intel 64 Architectures Software Developer's Manual, which has excellent documentation on how the CPU works, but doesn't describe how the system is setup.
I never wrote a firmware so I don't really know how that works in general. You probably have some memory detection done like an actual memory iteration that is done and some interrogation of PCI devices that are memory mapped in RAM. You also probably have some information in the Developer's manuals as to how you should get some information about memory and stuff like that.
In the end, the kernel doesn't need to bother about that because the firmware takes care to do all that and to provide temporary drivers before the kernel is set up completely.
The firmware passes information to the kernel using the ACPI tables so that is the convention you are looking for. The UEFI firmware launches the /efi/boot/bootx64.efi EFI app from the hard-disk automatically. It calls the main function of that app often called the bootloader. When you write that application, often with frameworks such as EDK2 or GNU-EFI, you can thus use the temporary drivers to get some information like the location of the RSDP which points to all other ACPI tables.
The ACPI convention specifies a language that is AML which, when your kernel interprets, tells it all about hardware. You thus have all the required information there to load drivers and such.
PCI (which is everything nowadays) is another thing. It works with memory mapped IO but the ACPI tables (the MCFG) is helpful to find the beginning of the configuration space for PCI devices that take the form of memory mapped registers.
As to graphics cards, you probably don't want to start with those. They are complex and, at first, you should probably stick to the framebuffer returned by UEFI and at least write a driver for xHCI which is the PCI host controller responsible to interact with USB including keyboards and mouses.
since we know that operating system works in protected mode
and BIOS works in a Real mode ( 16 bit). so when an interrupt is called from
either Operating System or application program, does CPU switch mode back and forth everytime?
In general; hardware is capable of doing lots of things at once (playing sounds while generating 3D graphics while sending data to network while transferring data to multiple disks while waiting for user input while all CPUs are busy doing actual processing); and BIOS functions are not capable of allowing more than one thing to happen at time (e.g. will waste 100% of CPU time waiting for a hard disk controller to transfer data while the CPU does nothing and while nothing else can use any other BIOS service for anything).
For this reason alone, BIOS services are not usable and not used by any modern OS (except briefly during boot).
Of course it's not the only reason - no IO prioritisation, no support for hot-plug of any kind, no support for power management, no support for system management (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. ), no support for GPU, no support for any sound card (other than "PC speaker beep"), no support for networking (excluding PXE), no support for IO APICs, etc. Ironically, out of all of the problems, "BIOS services are designed for real mode" is the least important problem because it's the only problem that an OS can work around.
Instead, each OS has native drivers that don't have any of these limitations.
Note: this is partly why it's relatively easy for modern operating systems to support UEFI (where none of the BIOS services exist at all) - for most, they replace the boot loader/boot code and don't need to change much else.
I am a new student studying OS course. I have already know that OS can serve for better communication between applications and hardwares in modern computer. But sometimes it seems more time efficient if applications can control hardware directly. May I ask whether it is possible?
yes it is possible but that would be a single application computer that computer only can run one particular application.
Applications handling hardware directly is faster as there is less of overhead of what OS does in its management.
You can take the example of DMA - Direct Memory Access. This feature is useful at any time that the CPU cannot keep up with the rate of data transfer, or when the CPU needs to perform work while waiting for a relatively slow I/O data transfer.
But you should keep in mind the importance of operating system in handling other hardwares as not everything can be managed that trivially and need processing for decision making.
Peripheral devices require drivers to work in a computer system (operating system).
Does a CPU need a driver to work?
Same question for a main memory?
The answer is no.
The reason is that the motherboard comes with an (upgradable) BIOS, which takes care of making sure the CPU features function correctly (obviously, an AMD processor won't work on an Intel motherboard). You can upgrade the BIOS, but that should be avoided until, ... reasons of course.
Same goes for memory, it does not require a driver either.
Just so that you know, if you ever tried overclocking you can notice that you can alter the way the RAM functions, ganged/unganged mods and so on. My point is that there is already an interface established using code allowing you to make changes in real time, isn't that the very purpose we even have drivers, to be able to use a peripheral with expected outcome.
On the other hand, peripheral devices are just extensions, which the motherboard does not know how to handle, hence needing a set of instructions i.e. drivers.
In a modern system both memory and the CPU require kernel mode code — as do devices — to function.
Memory requires management of virtual memory tables. The CPU requires maintenance of process control structures.
In the business, such code is not called a "driver".
Generally, one thinks of a device driver as being kernel mode code that responds to devices through the interrupt vector.
That said, on some systems there are "printer drivers" that do not fit that definition of driver.
In short, do memory and CPU have something called a "driver"? No.
Do they have something analogous to a driver? Yes.
I see that kernel mode drivers are risky as they run in privileged mode, but are there any monolithic kernel's that do any form of driver/loadable module sandboxing or is this really the domain of microkernels?
Yes, there are platforms with "monolithic" (for some definition of monolithic) kernels that do driver sandboxing for some drivers. Windows does this in more recent versions with the user mode driver framework. There are two reasons for doing this:-
It allows isolation. A failure in a user mode driver need not bring down the whole system. This is important for drivers for hardware which is not considered system critical. An example of this might be your printer, or your soundcard. In those cases if the driver fails, it can often simply be restarted and the user often won't even notice this happened.
It makes writing and debugging drivers much easier. Driver writers can use regular user mode libraries and regular user mode debuggers, without having to worry about things like IRQL and DPCs.
The other poster said there is no sense to this. Hopefully the above explains why you might want to do this. Additionally, the other poster said their is a performance concern. Again, this depends on the type of the driver. In Windows this is typically used for USB drivers. In the case of USB drivers, the driver is not talking directly to the hardware directly anyway regardless of the mode that the driver operates in - they are talking to another driver which is talking to the USB host controller, so there is much less overhead of user mode communication than there would be if you were writing a driver that had to bit bang IO ports from user mode. Also, you would avoid writing user mode drivers for hardware which was performance critical - in the case of printers and audio hardware the user mode transitions are so much faster than the hardware itself, that the performance cost of the one or two additional mode context switches is probably irrelevant.
So sometimes it is worth doing simply because the additional robustness and ease of development make the small and often unnoticeable performance reduction worthwhile.
There are no sense in this sandboxing, OS fully trust to drivers code. Basically this drivers become part of kernel. You can't failover after FS crash or any major subsystem of kernel. Basically it`s bad (failover after crash, imagine that you can do after storage driver of boot disk crash?), because can lead to data loss for example.
And second - sandboxing lead to perfomance hit to all kernel code.