Hybrid kernel, not NT

By: nick (anon.delete@this.anon.com), May 13, 2006 3:40 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
You're brave, to lecture Linus on the benefits of
microkernels :)

I think you're clutching at straws though.

Brendan (btrotter@gmail.com) on 5/13/06 wrote:
---------------------------
>Hi,
>
>Linus Torvalds (torvalds@osdl.org) on 5/9/06 wrote:
>---------------------------

>>Now, basically nobody would be as stupid as to do
>>this on a monolithic kernel. It's a pretty broken model,
>>and since the only reason to do it is to do something that
>>is actually pretty simple anyway (locking is very simple
>>if you just want to have total mutual exclusion), there's
>>just no real upside.
>
>Total mutual exclusion is easy until an IRQ handler needs to retrieve or store
>data without causing potential deadlocks (i.e. IRQ handlers would either need to be lock-free or _extremely_ careful).

But your microkernel driver can't do that at all though, so
that isn't even what is being talked about.

A monolithic kernel can just as easily have the IRQ work
deferred to process context as well.

>
>For the upsides, if the system is designed so that only one process has access
>to each "thing" (memory buffer, piece of state information, etc), then all locks
>are either confined within the micro-kernel itself or process specific (in the case
>of multi-threaded processes), which reduces complexity as the majority of re-entrancy
>concerns for the hundreds of device drivers are handled by the kernel's IPC mechanism.
>This basically means device driver programmers either don't need to care about re-entracy
>at all,

Great now your scalability sucks, and you can do this with
a monolithic kernel anyway as Linus points out.

>or they need to do the same things that anyone working on multi-threaded
>user level code does (if a device driver is implemented as a multi-threaded process).

And now you have to do "hard" threaded programming. There's
no two ways about it.

>Also, a micro-kernel is often small enough that the equivelent of a "big kernel
>lock" is practical, meaning you could have one lock in the entire system in addition
>to any "processes specific" locks, and no other locks.

I don't know what systems that thing would run on, but it
wouldn't be any big ones, that's for sure.

>
>Another potential advantage is NUMA systems, where you can set the CPU affinity
>on a device driver so that it's always run on a CPU that is "close" to the I/O controller
>used by the device. This doesn't apply to things like

No, this is not. Because if the data is coming from / going
to somewhere off node, you must send it across nodes anyway.
And now you *also* have control information (messages) going
across nodes as well.

This is a limitation of microkernels: a monolithic kernel
could do the same; it can also do something saner too.

network device drivers very
>much (as message data and/or shared memory can't easily be tied to a specific NUMA
>domain) but would benefit some things - e.g. file system code and the disk device
>driver both running on the correct NUMA node.

Of course it benefits network devcies. They allocate
data structures on the node closest to the controller too.

Again: you can't avoid the interconnect traffic unless you
also schedule the process which generates/consumes the data
on the same node (which applies to mico and mono kernels).

> Of course Linux can probably do this with kernel threads too.
>
>Then there's I/O port protection, where the kernel could be designed to grant a process access to specific I/O ports rather than all I/O ports (which can't be done on 80x86 when device drivers run at CPL=0). This is the only way I can think of to prevent security holes in device drivers from being used to mess with the chipset, PCI configuration space, etc. On an unrelated point, there's probably no reason why Linux couldn't do this for "device drivers" that already run as user-processes, like the X server (for one scenario, see http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/402).
>

... so, I thought you were going to come up with things that
Linux/mono kernels can't do?

>Then there's hardware changes. For example, consider a server with hot-plug PCI.

Another strawman.

>It runs for 5 years with no problems, then someone wants to plug in a new PCI device
>to handle increased load. The hardware is designed to handle this without downtime
>and the kernel supports hot-plug PCI so you'd think it could be done without downtime.
>Unfortunately the kernel is 5 years old and the device is new so you need to have
>downtime to update the kernel because of the new device driver. Someone's bound
>to say that Linux supports dynamically loaded modules, and in theory they'd be right
>(but in practice the kernel would've changed too much in 5 years to allow that possibility).

Actually, someone will say that this is nothing to do with
micro and monolithic kernels. If your microkernel's
interfaces have also evolved, then you need to backport the
driver; conversely, there is no reason why the Linux driver
couldn't be backported.

>
>Lastly there's booting. If device drviers are seperate processes, then the "device
>detection" code (PCI bus scan, etc) can start the processes/device drivers as it
>finds them and continue, such that all device drivers are initialized in parallel.
>This could be extended to system services - for example, as soon as a storage device
>driver completes it's initialization suitable file system code is loaded, as soon
>as the video card is initialized a "virtual terminal" is started, etc. Doing device
>detection, device driver initialization, system service startup, file system checks
>(and possibly X server and GUI startup) all in parallel would slash boot times noticeably.

No reason why a monolithic kernel cannot do this.

>There's already people trying to do "parallel system service startup" - I even saw
>one web page saying they reduced a 3 minute boot time down to 100 seconds using this method.

That's probably parallel userspace booting, and the time
savings are due to overlapping IO and computation.

>
>It'd probably be possible for Linux (or any monolithic system) to do all of the
>above, just like you can probably make a truck drive on water if you add enough
>"work arounds". It's not quite the same as something originally designed for the
>purpose though (like a boat), and you'd have to wonder at what point the monolithic kernel ceases to be monolithic.

I don't follow your logic. If a microkernel wasn't designed
to do any of the above and you just added "work arounds" to
it as well, what's the difference?!?

>
>IMHO the whole "micro-kernel vs. monolithic" thing (and OS design in general) comes
>down to compromises - balancing performance, features and development time to achieve
>a desired end result. For different end results, different compromises are made along the way.
>

Perhaps, but you have failed to make any case.

>>The reason microkernels often have that model is that if
>>you don't have direct interrupt delivery, and if all the
>>events are from some message queue anyway, it's just a
>>very natural way to do things. You actually tend to need
>>to do extra work to get re-entrant services and interrupts
>>delivered directly.
>>
>>Of course, if you want good performance, heaven
>>forbid, you actually want to get interrupts delivered
>>directly, and you want to actually look at the whole
>>message queue, not just the top entry, and suddenly you
>>find that microkernels are actually in your way of
>>doing things well (or that you actually need to know
>>about things like locking, because you need to look into
>>the message queue by hand).
>
>My prefered method is to have a scheduler that gives "interrupt handling" threads
>a higher priority than all other threads, such that their message queues are (under
>normal circumstances) empty anyway. A message sent from a lower priority thread
>to one of these high priority threads causes an immediate thread switch followed
>by message/IRQ delivery. More complex device drivers would be multi-threaded, consisting
>of a very high priority thread for dealing with the hardware and handling IRQs,
>and another thread for dealing with "client requests", etc. The price (as compared
>to a traditional monolithic OS) is extra interrupt latency caused by the context
>switches (but there isn't a need to scan the message queue in this case).

That's the performance Linus is talking about. Linux
actually has a realtime patchset which implements interrupt
threads (which will be much lighter weight than a full
userspace switch and tlb flush). However performance for
interrupt heavy workloads like networking unsurprisingly
sucks with it.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Hybrid (micro)kernelsTzvetan Mikov2006/05/08 03:41 PM
  Hybrid (micro)kernelsS. Rao2006/05/08 05:14 PM
  Hybrid (micro)kernelsBill Todd2006/05/08 05:16 PM
    Hybrid (micro)kernelsTzvetan Mikov2006/05/08 06:21 PM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelsnick2006/05/08 06:50 PM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelsBill Todd2006/05/09 12:26 AM
        There aren't enough words...Rob Thorpe2006/05/09 01:39 AM
          There aren't enough words...Tzvetan Mikov2006/05/09 02:10 PM
            There aren't enough words...Rob Thorpe2006/05/14 11:25 PM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelsTzvetan Mikov2006/05/09 10:17 AM
          Hybrid (micro)kernelsBill Todd2006/05/09 03:05 PM
  Hybrid (micro)kernelsrwessel2006/05/08 10:23 PM
    Hybrid kernel, not NTRichard Urich2006/05/09 05:03 AM
      Hybrid kernel, not NT_Arthur2006/05/09 06:06 AM
        Hybrid kernel, not NTRob Thorpe2006/05/09 06:40 AM
          Hybrid kernel, not NT_Arthur2006/05/09 07:30 AM
            Hybrid kernel, not NTRob Thorpe2006/05/09 08:07 AM
              Hybrid kernel, not NT_Arthur2006/05/09 08:36 AM
                Linux vs MacOSX peformance, debunked_Arthur2006/05/18 06:30 AM
                  Linux vs MacOSX peformance, debunkedRob Thorpe2006/05/18 07:19 AM
                    Linux vs MacOSX peformance, debunkedAnonymous2006/05/18 11:31 AM
        Hybrid kernel, not NTLinus Torvalds2006/05/09 07:16 AM
          Hybrid kernel, not NTAndi Kleen2006/05/09 01:32 PM
            Hybrid kernel, not NTmyself2006/05/09 02:24 PM
              Hybrid kernel, not NTmyself2006/05/09 02:41 PM
              Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/09 04:26 PM
                Hybrid kernel, not NTLinus Torvalds2006/05/09 07:06 PM
                  Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/13 12:35 AM
                    Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/13 03:40 AM
                      Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/13 08:48 AM
                        Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/13 06:41 PM
                          Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/13 08:51 PM
                            Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/14 04:57 PM
                              Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/14 09:40 PM
                                Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/14 10:46 PM
                                  Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/15 03:00 AM
                                    Hybrid kernel, not NTrwessel2006/05/15 06:21 AM
                                      Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/15 07:55 AM
                                        Hybrid kernel, not NTLinus Torvalds2006/05/15 08:49 AM
                                          Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/15 03:41 PM
                                          Hybrid kernel, not NTtony roth2008/01/31 01:20 PM
                                    Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/15 05:33 PM
                                      Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/16 12:39 AM
                                        Hybrid kernel, not NTnick2006/05/16 01:53 AM
                                          Hybrid kernel, not NTBrendan2006/05/16 04:37 AM
                  Hybrid kernel, not NTAnonymous2008/05/01 09:31 PM
                    Following the structure of the treeMichael S2008/05/02 03:19 AM
                      Following the structure of the treeDean Kent2008/05/02 04:31 AM
                        Following the structure of the treeMichael S2008/05/02 05:02 AM
                        Following the structure of the treeDavid W. Hess2008/05/02 05:48 AM
                          Following the structure of the treeDean Kent2008/05/02 08:14 AM
                            Following the structure of the treeDavid W. Hess2008/05/02 09:05 AM
                              LOL!Dean Kent2008/05/02 09:33 AM
                              Following the structure of the treeanonymous2008/05/02 02:04 PM
                                Following the structure of the treeDean Kent2008/05/02 06:52 PM
                                Following the structure of the treeFoo_2008/05/03 01:01 AM
                                  Following the structure of the treeDavid W. Hess2008/05/03 05:54 AM
                                    Following the structure of the treeDean Kent2008/05/03 09:06 AM
                                      Following the structure of the treeFoo_2008/05/04 12:06 AM
                                        Following the structure of the treeMichael S2008/05/04 12:22 AM
            Hybrid kernel, not NTLinus Torvalds2006/05/09 04:19 PM
              Microkernel Vs Monolithic KernelKernel_Protector2006/05/09 08:41 PM
                Microkernel Vs Monolithic KernelDavid Kanter2006/05/09 09:30 PM
                  Sigh, Stand back, its slashdotting time. (NT)Anonymous2006/05/09 09:44 PM
                  Microkernel Vs Monolithic Kernelblah2006/05/12 07:58 PM
                  Microkernel Vs Monolithic KernelRob Thorpe2006/05/15 12:41 AM
          Hybrid kernel, not NTAnalGuy2006/05/16 02:10 AM
            Theory versus practiceDavid Kanter2006/05/16 11:55 AM
              Distributed algorithmsRob Thorpe2006/05/16 11:53 PM
              Theory versus practiceHoward Chu2006/05/17 01:54 AM
                Theory versus practiceJS2006/05/17 03:29 AM
          Play online poker, blackjack !!! Gamezonex2007/08/16 12:49 PM
  Hybrid (micro)kernelsphilt2006/05/14 08:15 PM
    Hybrid (micro)kernelsLinus Torvalds2006/05/15 07:20 AM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelsLinus Torvalds2006/05/15 10:56 AM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelsRob Thorpe2006/05/16 12:22 AM
          Hybrid (micro)kernelsrwessel2006/05/16 10:23 AM
            Hybrid (micro)kernelsRob Thorpe2006/05/16 11:43 PM
              Hybrid (micro)kernelsrwessel2006/05/17 12:33 AM
                Hybrid (micro)kernelsRob Thorpe2006/05/19 06:51 AM
                  Hybrid (micro)kernelsrwessel2006/05/19 11:27 AM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelstechIperson2006/05/15 12:25 PM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelsmas2006/05/15 04:17 PM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelsLinus Torvalds2006/05/15 04:39 PM
          Hybrid (micro)kernelsColonel Kernel2006/05/15 08:17 PM
            Hybrid (micro)kernelsWink Saville2006/05/15 09:31 PM
              Hybrid (micro)kernelsLinus Torvalds2006/05/16 09:08 AM
                Hybrid (micro)kernelsWink Saville2006/05/16 08:55 PM
          Hybrid (micro)kernelsrwessel2006/05/16 10:31 AM
            Hybrid (micro)kernelsLinus Torvalds2006/05/16 11:00 AM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelsBrendan2006/05/16 12:36 AM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelsPaul Elliott2006/09/03 07:44 AM
          Hybrid (micro)kernelsRob Thorpe2006/09/04 08:25 AM
      Hybrid (micro)kernelsphilt2006/05/15 11:55 PM
        Hybrid (micro)kernelspgerassi2007/08/16 06:41 PM
  Another questionable entry on Wikipedia?Chung Leong2006/05/18 09:33 AM
  Hybrid (micro)kernelsisrael2006/05/20 03:25 AM
    Hybrid (micro)kernelsRob Thorpe2006/05/22 07:35 AM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?