In FreeBSD kernel, how can I first stop all the cores, and then run my code (can be a kernel module) on all the cores? Also, when finished, I can let them restore contexts and continue executing.
Linux has APIs like this, I believe FreeBSD also has a set of APIs to do this.
edit:
Most likely I did not clarify what I want to do. First, the machine is x86_64 SMP.
I set a timer, when the time is over; to stop all the threads (including kernel threads) on all cores; save context; run my code on one core to do some kernel stuff; when finished, restore the context and let them continue running; periodically. The other kernel threads and processes are not affected (without changing their relative priority).
I assume that your "code" (the kernel module) actually takes advantage of SMP inherently already.
So, one approach you can do is:
Set the affinity of all your processes/threads to your desired cpus (sched_setaffinity)
Set each of your threads to use Real-Time (RT) scheduling.
If it is a kernel module, you can do this manually in your module (I believe), by changing the scheduling policy for your task_struct to SCHED_RR (or SCHED_FIFO) after pinning each process to a core.
In userspace, you can use the FreeBSD rtprio command (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rtprio&sektion=1):
rtprio, idprio -- execute, examine or modify a utility's or process's
realtime or idletime scheduling priority
The effect will be: Your code will run first before any other non-essential process in the system, until your code finishes.
Related
Consider the following fork bomb in Python (source):
import os
while 1:
os.fork()
I'm too afraid to test it out myself, but I'm somewhat skeptical that if I just took this program and ran it my computer would just freeze up and die. Assuming this is true, my question is -- what mechanisms or policies is my operating system using to fight it off?
My question can be viewed as sort of an "application" problem to what one might learn in an OS class.
As expected, when I tried it out on my machine, the computer froze and I had to hard reboot. So definitely don't do this on a regular basis.
The last error that I was able to capture from the program was:
BlockingIOError: [Errno 11] Resource temporarily unavailable
File "fork_bomb.py", line 3, in <module>
os.fork()
So at some point, the OS couldn't handle the OS fork calls and returned an error. The only other useful message I can see from /var/log/syslog is
cgroup: fork rejected by pids controller in /user.slice/user-1000.slice/session-2.scope
Cgroups are a way to restrict resources from processes within a particular cgroup. So presumably, the python processes were in a cgroup that had reached its pid/task limit. So that's one way the OS tries to deal with fork bombs, is limiting tasks using cgroups. Of course, the infinite loop of forks, even if the forks were failing, still required overhead from requesting resources from the OS, hence the system freeze.
Theoretically, another way the OS can try to limit fork bombs is through memory limits. Ignoring copy-on-write, if all the forked processes required extra memory, the Linux OOM (out of memory) killer will be called. This kernel process will be awakened when memory is tight and then its job is to start killing processes that it thinks will help free up sufficient memory to keep the system running. Memory limits can be set using cgroups or by setting the minimum free memory using /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes.
First consider the situation when there is only one operating system installed. Now I run some executable. Processor reads instructions from the executable file and preforms these instructions. Even though I can put whatever instructions I want into the file, my program can't read arbitrary areas of HDD (and do many other potentially "bad" things).
It looks like magic, but I understand how this magic works. Operating system starts my program and puts the processor into some "unprivileged" state. "Unsafe" processor instructions are not allowed in this state and the only way to put the processor back to "privileged" state is give the control back to kernel. Kernel code can use all the processor's instructions, so it can do potentially unsafe things my program "asked" for if it decides it is allowed.
Now suppose we have VMWare or VirtualBox on Windows host. Guest operating system is Linux. I run a program in guest, it transfers control to guest Linux kernel. The guest Linux kernel's code is supposed to be run in processor's "privileged" mode (it must contain the "unsafe" processor instructions!). But I strongly doubt that it has an unlimited access to all the computer's resources.
I do not need too much technical details, I only want to understand how this part of magic works.
This is a great question and it really hits on some cool details regarding security and virtualization. I'll give a high-level overview of how things work on an Intel processor.
How are normal processes managed by the operating system?
An Intel processor has 4 different "protection rings" that it can be in at any time. The ring that code is currently running in determines the specific assembly instructions that may run. Ring 0 can run all of the privileged instructions whereas ring 3 cannot run any privileged instructions.
The operating system kernel always runs in ring 0. This ring allows the kernel to execute the privileged instructions it needs in order to control memory, start programs, write to the HDD, etc.
User applications run in ring 3. This ring does not permit privileged instructions (e.g. those for writing to the HDD) to run. If an application attempts to run a privileged instruction, the processor will take control from the process and raise an exception that the kernel will handle in ring 0; the kernel will likely just terminate the process.
Rings 1 and 2 tend not to be used, though they have a use.
Further reading
How does virtualization work?
Before there was hardware support for virtualization, a virtual machine monitor (such as VMWare) would need to do something called binary translation (see this paper). At a high level, this consists of the VMM inspecting the binary of the guest operating system and emulating the behavior of the privileged instructions in a safe manner.
Now there is hardware support for virtualization in Intel processors (look up Intel VT-x). In addition to the four rings mentioned above, the processor has two states, each of which contains four rings: VMX root mode and VMX non-root mode.
The host operating system and its applications, along with the VMM (such as VMWare), run in VMX root mode. The guest operating system and its applications run in VMX non-root mode. Again, both of these modes each have their own four rings, so the host OS runs in ring 0 of root mode, the host OS applications run in ring 3 of root mode, the guest OS runs in ring 0 of non-root mode, and the guest OS applications run in ring 3 of non-root mode.
When code that is running in ring 0 of non-root mode attempts to execute a privileged instruction, the processor will hand control back to the host operating system running in root mode so that the host OS can emulate the effects and prevent the guest from having direct access to privileged resources (or in some cases, the processor hardware can just emulate the effect itself without getting the host involved). Thus, the guest OS can "execute" privileged instructions without having unsafe access to hardware resources - the instructions are just intercepted and emulated. The guest cannot just do whatever it wants - only what the host and the hardware allow.
Just to clarify, code running in ring 3 of non-root mode will cause an exception to be sent to the guest OS if it attempts to execute a privileged instruction, just as an exception will be sent to the host OS if code running in ring 3 of root mode attempts to execute a privileged instruction.
From the bind9 man page, I understand that the named process starts one worker thread per CPU if it was able to determine the number of CPUs. If its unable to determine, a single worker thread is started.
My question is how does it calculate the number of CPUs? I presume by CPU, it means cores. The Linux machine I work is customized and has kernel 2.6.34 and does not support lscpu or nproc utilities. named is starting a single thread even if i give -n 4 option. Is there any other way to force named to start multiple threads?
Thanks in advance.
I've started reading about VMM and wondered to myself how does the hypervisor knows a privileged instruction (for ex, cpuid) happened inside a VM and not real OS ?
let's say I've executed cpuid, a trap will occur and a VMEXIT would happen, how does the hypevisor
would know that the instruction happened inside my regular OS or inside a VM ?
First off, you are using the wrong terminology. When an OS runs on top of a hypervisor, the OS becomes the VM (virtual-machine) itself and the hypervisor is the VMM (=virtual machine monitor). A VM can also be called "guest". Thus: OS on top of hypervisor = VM = guest (these expressions mean the same thing).
Secondly, you tell the CPU that it's executing inside the VM from the moment you've executed VMLAUNCH or VMRESUME, assuming you're reading about Intel VMX. When for some reason the VM causes a hypervisor trap, we say that "a VM-exit occured" and the CPU knows it's no longer executing inside the VM. Thus:
Between VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME executions and VM-exits we are in the VM and CPUID will trap (causing a VM-exit)
Between VM-exits and VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME executions we are in the VMM (=hypervisor) and CPUID will NOT TRAP, since we already are in the hypervisor
Instructions that are privileged generate exceptions when executed in user mode. The exception is usually an undefined instruction exception. The hypervisor hooks this exception, inspects the executing instruction and then returns control to the VM. When the host OS calls the same instruction, it is in a supervisor or elevated privilege and usually no exception is generated when it executes the instruction. So generally, these issues are handled by the CPU.
However, if an instruction is not available on the processor (say floating point emulation), then the hypervisor may emulate for the VM and chain to the OS handler if not. Possibly it may even allow the OS to handle the emulation for both VMs and user tasks in the OS.
So generally, this question is unanswerable for a generic CPU. It depends on how the instruction is emulated in the VM. However, the best case is that the hypervisor does not emulate any OS instructions. Emulations will not only slow down the VMs, but the entire CPU, including user processes in the host OS.
I have developed a Linux block device driver for CD device. The driver is working well but now there is a requirement that it should run on a SMP system. When I did a test run on the SMP system, I found the performance of the driver to degrade. The Bit rate for DATA CD has gone down tremendously as compared to single core system. So I understand that my driver needs to be modified to make it SMP safe.
In my driver , I have used :
1. Kernel threads
2. Mutex
3. Semaphore
4. Completions
My SMP system is : ARM Cortex-A9 Dual Core 600 MHz
Can some one please tell me what all factors that I should keep in mind while doing this porting?
Normally for SMP systems the shared resources (I/O resources) and global variables must be handled in such a way that simultaneous execution of a task must not overwrite, corrupt the data for this you can use spin_locks, semaphores etc to ensure that only one core will perform operation on that block/task at a time. This is logical implementation you've to identify the potential risky areas in device driver like ISR, read and write operations and have to identify the multiple entry points of your device driver and central task (in driver) toward which they are/will going/go.