Related
Some web searching results told me that the only deficiency of kernel-level thread is the slow speed of its management(create, switch, terminate, etc.). It seems that if the operation on the kernel-level thread is all through system calls, the answer to my question will be true. However, I've searched a lot to find whether the management of kernel-level thread is all through system call but find nothing. And I always have an instinct that such management should be done by the OS automatically because only OS knows which thread would be suitable to run at a specific time. So it seems impossible for programmers to write some explicit system calls to manage threads. I'm appreciative of any ideas.
Some web searching results told me that the only deficiency of kernel-level thread is the slow speed of its management(create, switch, terminate, etc.).
It's not that simple. To understand, think about what causes task switches. Here's a (partial) list:
a device told a device driver that an operation completed (some data arrived, etc) causing a thread that was waiting for the operation to unblock and then preempt the currently running thread. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
enough time passed; either causing an "end of time slice" task switch, or causing a sleeping thread to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the thread accessed virtual memory that isn't currently accessible, triggering the kernel's page fault handler which finds out that the current task has to wait while the kernel fetches data from from swap space or from a file (if the virtual memory is part of a memory mapped file), or has to wait for kernel to free up RAM by sending other pages to swap space (if virtual memory was involved in some kind of "copy on write"); causing a task switch because the currently running task can't continue. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
a new process is being created, and its initial thread preempts the currently running thread. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread asked kernel to do something with a file and kernel got "VFS cache miss" that prevents the request from being performed without any task switches. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread releases a mutex or sends some data (e.g. using a pipe or socket); causing a thread that belongs to a different process to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread releases a mutex or sends some data (e.g. using a pipe or socket); causing a thread that belongs to the same process to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running user-space code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so in theory user-space task switching is faster, but in practice it can just as easily be an indicator of poor design (using too many threads and/or far too much lock contention).
a new thread is being created for the same process; and the new thread preempts the currently running thread. For this case you're running user-space code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so in user-space task switching is faster; but only if kernel isn't informed (e.g. so that utilities like "top" can properly display details for threads) - if kernel is informed anyway then it doesn't make much difference where the task switch happens.
For most software (which doesn't use very many threads); doing task switches in the kernel is faster. Of course it's also (hopefully) fairly irrelevant for performance (because time spent switching tasks should be tiny compared to time spend doing other work).
And I always have an instinct that such management should be done by the OS automatically because only OS knows which thread would be suitable to run at a specific time.
Yes; but possibly not for the reason you think.
Another problem with user-space threading (besides making most task switches slower) is that it can't support global thread priorities without becoming a severe security disaster. Specifically; a process can't know if its own thread is higher or lower priority than a thread belonging to a different process (unless it has information about all threads for the entire OS, which is information that normal processes shouldn't be trusted to have); so user-space threading leads to wasting CPU time doing unimportant work (for one process) when there's important work to do (for a different process).
Another problem with user-space threading is that (for some CPUs - e.g. most 80x86 CPUs) the CPUs are not independent, and there may be power management decisions involved with scheduling. For examples; most 80x86 CPUs have hyper-threading (where a core is shared by 2 logical processors), where a smart scheduler may say "one logical processor in the core is running a high priority/important thread, so the other logical processor in the same core should not run a low priority/unimportant thread because that would make the important work slower"; most 80x86 CPUs have "turbo boost" (with similar "don't let low priority threads ruin the turbo-boost/performance of high priority thread" possibilities); and most CPUs have thermal management (where scheduler might say "Hey, these threads are all low priority, so let's underclock the CPU so that it cools down and can go faster later (has more thermal headroom) when there's high priority/more important work to do!").
Would it makes the kernel level thread clearly preferable to user level thread if system calls is as fast as procedure calls?
If system calls were as fast as normal procedure calls, then the performance differences between user-space threading and kernel threading would disappear (but all the other problems with user-space threading would remain). However, the reason why system calls are slower than normal procedure calls is that they pass through a kind of "isolation barrier" (that isolates kernel's code and data from malicious user-space code); so to make system calls as fast as normal procedure calls you'd have to get rid of the isolation (effectively turning the kernel into a kind of "global shared library" that can be dynamically linked) but without that isolation you'll have an extreme security disaster. In other words; to have any hope of achieving acceptable security, system calls must be slower than normal procedure calls.
Your basic premise is wrong. System calls are much slower than procedure calls in almost every interesting architecture.
The perceived cpu throughput is based on pipelining, speculative execution and fetching. The syscall stops the pipeline, invalidates the speculative execution and halts the speculative fetching, is a store and instruction barrier, and may flush the write fifo.
So, the processor slows down to its ‘spec’ speed around the syscall, accelerating back up until the syscall return, whereupon it does about the exact same thing.
Attempts to optimise this area have given rise to lots of papers named after fictional James Bond organizations, and not conciliatory enough apologies from not embarrassed enough cpu product managers. Google spectre as an example, then follow the associated links.
The other cost of syscall
A bit over 30 years ago, some smart guys wrote a paper about least privilege. Conceptually, it is a stunner. The basic premise is that whatever your program is doing, it should do it with the least privilege possible.
If your program is inverting arrays, according to the notion of least privilege, it should not be able to disable interrupts. Disabling interrupts can cause a very difficult to diagnose system failure. Simple user code should not have this ability.
The notion of user and kernel modes of execution evolved from early computer systems, and (with the possible exception of the iax32 / 80286 ) are increasingly showing their inadequacy in the connected computer environment. At one point in time you could say "this is a single user system"; but the IoT dweebs have made everything multi-user.
Least privilege insists that all code should execute with the minimum privilege required to complete the task at hand. Thus, nothing should be in the kernel that absolutely doesn't need to be. If you think that is a radical thought, in Ken Thompson's 1977(?) paper on the UNIX kernel he states exactly the same thing.
So no, putting your junk in the kernel just means you have increased the attack surface for no valid reason. Try to think in terms of exposing minimum risk, it leads to better software and better sleep.
Copy pasted from this link:
Thread switching does not require Kernel mode privileges.
User level threads are fast to create and manage.
Kernel threads are generally slower to create and manage than the user threads.
Transfer of control from one thread to another within the same process requires a mode switch to the Kernel.
I never came across these points while reading standard operating systems reference books. Though these points sound logical, I wanted to know how they reflect in Linux. To be precise :
Can someone give detailed steps involved in context switching between user threads and kernel threads, so that I can find the step difference between the two.
Can someone explain the difference with actual context switch example or code. May be system calls involved (in case of context switching between kernel threads) and thread library calls involved (in case of context switching between user threads).
Can someone link me to Linux source code line (say on github) handling context switch.
I also doubt why context switch between kernel threads requires changing to kernel mode. Aren't we already in kernel mode for first thread?
Can someone give detailed steps involved in context switching between user threads and kernel threads, so that I can find the step difference between the two.
Let's imagine a thread needs to read data from a file, but the file isn't cached in memory and disk drives are slow so the thread has to wait; and for simplicity let's also assume that the kernel is monolithic.
For kernel threading:
thread calls a "read()" function in a library or something; which must cause at least a switch to kernel code (because it's going to involve device drivers).
the kernel adds the IO request to the disk driver's "queue of possibly many pending requests"; realizes the thread will need to wait until the request completes, sets the thread to "blocked waiting for IO" and switches to a different thread (that may belong to a completely different process, depending on global thread priorities). The kernel returns to the user-space of whatever thread it switch to.
later; the disk hardware causes an IRQ which causes a switch back to the IRQ handler in kernel code. The disk driver finishes up the work it had to do the for (currently blocked) thread and unblocks that thread. At this point the kernel might decide to switch to the "now unblocked" thread; and the kernel returns to the user-space of the "now unblocked" thread.
For user threading:
thread calls a "read()" function in a library or something; which must cause at least a switch to kernel code (because it's going to involve device drivers).
the kernel adds the IO request to the disk driver's "queue of possibly many pending requests"; realizes the thread will need to wait until the request completes but can't take care of that because some fool decided to make everything worse by doing thread switching in user space, so the kernel returns to user-space with "IO request has been queued" status.
after the pointless extra overhead of switching back to user-space; the user-space scheduler does the thread switch that the kernel could have done. At this point the user-space scheduler will either tell kernel it has nothing to do and you'll have more pointless extra overhead switching back to kernel; or user-space scheduler will do a thread switch to another thread in the same process (which may be the wrong thread because a thread in a different process is higher priority).
later; the disk hardware causes an IRQ which causes a switch back to the IRQ handler in kernel code. The disk driver finishes up the work it had to do for the (currently blocked) thread; but the kernel isn't able to do the thread switch to unblock the thread because some fool decided to make everything worse by doing thread switching in user space. Now we've got a problem - how does kernel inform the user-space scheduler that the IO has finished? To solve this (without any "user-space scheduler running zero threads constantly polls kernel" insanity) you have to have some kind of "kernel puts notification of IO completion on some kind of queue and (if the process was idle) wakes the process up" which (on its own) will be more expensive than just doing the thread switch in the kernel. Of course if the process wasn't idle then code in user-space is going to have to poll its notification queue to find out if/when the "notification of IO completion" arrives, and that's going to increase latency and overhead. In any case, after lots of stupid pointless and avoidable overhead; the user-space scheduler can do the thread switch.
Can someone explain the difference with actual context switch example or code. May be system calls involved (in case of context switching between kernel threads) and thread library calls involved (in case of context switching between user threads).
The actual low-level context switch code typically begins with something like:
save whichever registers are "caller preserved" according to the calling conventions on the stack
save the current stack top in some kind of "thread info structure" belonging to the old thread
load a new stack top from some kind of "thread info structure" belonging to the new thread
pop whichever registers are "caller preserved" according to the calling conventions
return
However:
usually (for modern CPUs) there's a relatively large amount of "SIMD register state" (e.g. for 80x86 with support for AVX-512 I think it's over 4 KiB of of stuff). CPU manufacturers often have mechanisms to avoid saving parts of that state if it wasn't changed, and to (optionally) postpone the loading of (pieces of) that state until its actually used (and avoid it completely if its not actually used). All of that requires kernel.
if it's a task switch and not just used for thread switches you might need some kind of "if virtual address space needs to change { change virtual address space }" on top of that
normally you want to keep track of statistics, like how much CPU time a thread has used. This requires some kind of "thread_info.time_used += now() - time_at_last_thread_switch;"; which gets difficulty/ugly when "process switching" is separated from "thread switching".
normally there's other state (e.g. pointer to thread local storage, special registers for performance monitoring and/or debugging, ...) that may need to be saved/loaded during thread switches. Often this state is not directly accessible in user code.
normally you also want to set a timer to expire when the thread has used too much time; either because you're doing some kind of "time multiplexing" (e.g. round-robin scheduler) or because its a cooperating scheduler where you need to have some kind of "terminate this task after 5 seconds of not responding in case it goes into an infinite loop forever" safe-guard.
this is just the low level task/thread switching in isolation. There is almost always higher level code to select a task to switch to, handle "thread used too much CPU time", etc.
Can someone link me to Linux source code line (say on github) handling context switch
Someone probably can't. It's not one line; it's many lines of assembly for each different architecture, plus extra higher-level code (for timers, support routines, the "select a task to switch to" code, for exception handlers to support "lazy SIMD state load", ...); which probably all adds up to something like 10 thousand lines of code spread across 50 files.
I also doubt why context switch between kernel threads requires changing to kernel mode. Aren't we already in kernel mode for first thread?
Yes; often you're already in kernel code when you find out that a thread switch is needed.
Rarely/sometimes (mostly only due to communication between threads belonging to the same process - e.g. 2 or more threads in the same process trying to acquire the same mutex/semaphore at the same time; or threads sending data to each other and waiting for data from each other to arrive) kernel isn't involved; and in some cases (which are almost always massive design failures - e.g. extreme lock contention problems, failure to use "worker thread pools" to limit the number of threads needed, etc) it's possible for this to be the dominant cause of thread switches, and therefore possible that doing thread switches in user space can be beneficial (e.g. as a work-around for the massive design failures).
Don't limit yourself to Linux or even UNIX, they are neither the first nor last word on systems or programming models. The synchronous execution model dates back to the early days of computing, and are not particularly well suited to larger scale concurrent and reactive programming.
Golang, for example, employs a great many lightweight user threads -- goroutines -- and multiplexes them on a smaller set of heavyweight kernel threads to produce a more compelling concurrency paradigm. Some other programming systems take similar approaches.
I recently started to learn how the CPU and the operating system works, and I am a bit confused about the operation of a single-CPU machine with an operating system that provides multitasking.
Supposing my machine has a single CPU, this would mean that, at any given time, only one process could be running.
Now, I can only assume that the scheduler used by the operating system to control the access to the precious CPU time is also a process.
Thus, in this machine, either the user process or the scheduling system process is running at any given point in time, but not both.
So here's a question:
Once the scheduler gives up control of the CPU to another process, how can it regain CPU time to run itself again to do its scheduling work? I mean, if any given process currently running does not yield the CPU, how could the scheduler itself ever run again and ensure proper multitasking?
So far, I had been thinking, well, if the user process requests an I/O operation through a system call, then in the system call we could ensure the scheduler is allocated some CPU time again. But I am not even sure if this works in this way.
On the other hand, if the user process in question were inherently CPU-bound, then, from this point of view, it could run forever, never letting other processes, not even the scheduler run again.
Supposing time-sliced scheduling, I have no idea how the scheduler could slice the time for the execution of another process when it is not even running?
I would really appreciate any insight or references that you can provide in this regard.
The OS sets up a hardware timer (Programmable interval timer or PIT) that generates an interrupt every N milliseconds. That interrupt is delivered to the kernel and user-code is interrupted.
It works like any other hardware interrupt. For example your disk will force a switch to the kernel when it has completed an IO.
Google "interrupts". Interrupts are at the centre of multithreading, preemptive kernels like Linux/Windows. With no interrupts, the OS will never do anything.
While investigating/learning, try to ignore any explanations that mention "timer interrupt", "round-robin" and "time-slice", or "quantum" in the first paragraph – they are dangerously misleading, if not actually wrong.
Interrupts, in OS terms, come in two flavours:
Hardware interrupts – those initiated by an actual hardware signal from a peripheral device. These can happen at (nearly) any time and switch execution from whatever thread might be running to code in a driver.
Software interrupts – those initiated by OS calls from currently running threads.
Either interrupt may request the scheduler to make threads that were waiting ready/running or cause threads that were waiting/running to be preempted.
The most important interrupts are those hardware interrupts from peripheral drivers – those that make threads ready that were waiting on IO from disks, NIC cards, mice, keyboards, USB etc. The overriding reason for using preemptive kernels, and all the problems of locking, synchronization, signaling etc., is that such systems have very good IO performance because hardware peripherals can rapidly make threads ready/running that were waiting for data from that hardware, without any latency resulting from threads that do not yield, or waiting for a periodic timer reschedule.
The hardware timer interrupt that causes periodic scheduling runs is important because many system calls have timeouts in case, say, a response from a peripheral takes longer than it should.
On multicore systems the OS has an interprocessor driver that can cause a hardware interrupt on other cores, allowing the OS to interrupt/schedule/dispatch threads onto multiple cores.
On seriously overloaded boxes, or those running CPU-intensive apps (a small minority), the OS can use the periodic timer interrupts, and the resulting scheduling, to cycle through a set of ready threads that is larger than the number of available cores, and allow each a share of available CPU resources. On most systems this happens rarely and is of little importance.
Every time I see "quantum", "give up the remainder of their time-slice", "round-robin" and similar, I just cringe...
To complement #usr's answer, quoting from Understanding the Linux Kernel:
The schedule( ) Function
schedule( ) implements the scheduler. Its objective is to find a
process in the runqueue list and then assign the CPU to it. It is
invoked, directly or in a lazy way, by several kernel routines.
[...]
Lazy invocation
The scheduler can also be invoked in a lazy way by setting the
need_resched field of current [process] to 1. Since a check on the value of this
field is always made before resuming the execution of a User Mode
process (see the section "Returning from Interrupts and Exceptions" in
Chapter 4), schedule( ) will definitely be invoked at some close
future time.
I understand how programs in machine code can load values from memory in to registers, perform jumps, or store values in registers to memory, but I don't understand how this works for multiple processes. A process is allocated memory on the fly, so must it use relative addressing? Is this done automatically (meaning there are assembly instructions that perform relative jumps, etc.), or does the program have to "manually" add the correct offset to every memory position it addresses.
I have another question regarding multitasking that is somewhat related. How does the OS, which isn't running, stop a thread and move on to the next. Is this done with timed interrupts? If so, then how can the values in registers be preserved for a thread. Are they saved to memory before control is given to a different thread? Or, rather than timed interrupts, does the thread simply choose a good time to give up control. In the case of timed interrupts, what happens if a thread is given processor time and it doesn't need it. Does it have to waste it, can it call the interrupt manually, or does it alert the OS that it doesn't need much time?
Edit: Or are executables edited before being run to compensate for the correct offsets?
That's not how it works. All modern operating systems virtualize the available memory. Giving every process the illusion that it has 2 gigabytes of memory (or more) and doesn't have to share it with anybody. The key component in a machine that does this is the MMU, nowadays built in the processor itself. Another core feature of this virtualization is that it isolates processes. One misbehaving one cannot bring another one down with it.
Yes, a clock tick interrupt is used to interrupt the currently running code. Processor state is simply saved on the stack. The operating system scheduler then checks if any other thread is ready to run and has a high enough priority to get first in line. Some extra code ensures that everybody gets a fair share. Then it just a matter of setting the MMU to resume execution on the other thread. If no thread is ready to run then the CPU gets physically turned off with the HALT instruction. To be woken again by the next clock interrupt.
This is ten-thousand foot view, it is well covered in any book about operating system design.
A process is allocated memory on the fly, so must it use relative addressing?
No, it can use relative or absolute addressing depending on what it is trying to address.
At least historically, the various different addressing modes were more about local versus remote memory. Relative addressing was for memory addresses close to the current address while absolute was more expensive but could address anything. With modern virtual memory systems, these distinctions may be no longer necessary.
A process is allocated memory on the fly, so must it use relative addressing? Is this done automatically (meaning there are assembly instructions that perform relative jumps, etc.), or does the program have to "manually" add the correct offset to every memory position it addresses.
I'm not sure about this one. This is taken care of by the compiler normally. Again, modern virtual memory systems make make this complexity unnecessary.
Are they saved to memory before control is given to a different thread?
Yes. Typically all of the state (registers, etc.) is stored in a process control block (PCB), a new context is loaded, the registers and other context is loaded from the new PCB, and execution begins in the new context. The PCB can be stored on the stack or in kernel memory or in can utilize processor specific operations to optimize this process.
Or, rather than timed interrupts, does the thread simply choose a good time to give up control.
The thread can yield control -- put itself back at the end of the run queue. It can also wait for some IO or sleep. Thread libraries then put the thread in wait queues and switch to another context. When the IO is ready or the sleep expires, the thread is put back into the run queue. The same happens with mutex locks. It waits for the lock in a wait queue. Once the lock is available, the thread is put back into the run queue.
In the case of timed interrupts, what happens if a thread is given processor time and it doesn't need it. Does it have to waste it, can it call the interrupt manually, or does it alert the OS that it doesn't need much time?
Either the thread can run (perform CPU instructions) or it is waiting -- either on IO or a sleep. It can ask to yield but typically it is doing so by [again] sleeping or waiting on IO.
I probably walked into this question quite late, but then, it may be of use to some other programmers. First - the theory.
The modern day operating system will virtualize the memory, and to do so, it maintains, within its system memory area, a series of page pointers. Each page is of a fixed size (usually 4K), and when any program seeks some memory, its allocated memory addresses that are virtualized using the memory page pointer. Its approximates the behaviour of "segment" registers in the prior generation of the processors.
Now when the scheduler decides to get another process running, it may or may not keep the previous process in memory. If it keeps it in memory, then all that the scheduler does is to save the entire register snapshot (now, including YMM registers - this bit was a complex issue earlier as there are no single instructions that saved the entire context : read up on XSAVE), and this has a fixed format (available in Intel SW manual). This is stored in the memory space of the scheduler itself, along with the information on the memory pages that were being used.
If however, the scheduler needs to "dump" the current process context that is about to go to sleep to the hard disk - this situation usually arises when the process that is waking up needs extraordinary amount of memory, then the scheduler writes the memory page files in the disk blocks (called pagefile - reserved area of memory - also the source of "old grandmother wisdom" that pagefile must be equal to size of real memory) and the scheduler preserves the memory page pointer addresses as offsets in the pagefile. When it wakes up, the scheduler reads from pagefile the offset address, allocates real memory and populates the memory page pointers, and then loads the contents from the disk blocks.
Now, to answer your specific questions :
1. Do u need to use only relative addressing, or you can use absolute?
And. You may use either - whatever u perceive to be as absolute is also relative as the memory page pointer relativizes that address in an invisible format. There is no really absolute memory address anywhere (including the io device memories) except the kernel of the operating system itself. To test this, u may unassemble any .EXE program, to see that the entry point is always CALL 0010 which clearly implies that each thread gets a different "0010" to start the execution.
How do threads get life and what if it surrenders the unused slice.
Ans. The threads usually get a slice - modern systems have 20ms as the usual standard - but this is sometimes changed in special purpose compilation for servers that do not have many hardware interrupts to deal with - in order of their position on the process queue. A thread usually surrenders its slice by calling function sleep(), which is a formal (and very nice way) to surrender your balance part of the time slice. Most libraries implementing asynchronous reads, or interrupt actions, call sleep() internally, but in many instances, top level programs also call sleep() - e.g. to create a time gap. An invocation to sleep will certainly change the process context - the CPU actually is not given the liberty to sleep using NOP.
The other method is to wait for an IO to complete, and this is handled differently. The program on asking for an IO process, will cede its time slice, and the process scheduler flags this thread to be in "WAITING FOR AN IO" state - and this thread will not be given a time slice by the processor till its intended IO is completed, or timed out. This feature helps programmers as they do not have to explicitly write a sleep_until_IO() kind of interface.
Trust this sets you going further in your explorations.
I read that Linux kernel is preemptive, which is different from most Unix kernels. So, what does it really mean for a kernal to be preemptive?
Some analogies or examples would be better than pure theoretical explanation.
ADD 1 -- 11:00 AM 12/7/2018
Preemptive is just one paradigm of multi-tasking. There are others like Cooperative Multi-tasking. A better understanding can be achieved by comparing them.
Prior to Linux kernel version 2.5.4, Linux Kernel was not preemptive which means a process running in kernel mode cannot be moved out of processor until it itself leaves the processor or it starts waiting for some input output operation to get complete.
Generally a process in user mode can enter into kernel mode using system calls. Previously when the kernel was non-preemptive, a lower priority process could priority invert a higher priority process by denying it access to the processor by repeatedly calling system calls and remaining in the kernel mode. Even if the lower priority process' timeslice expired, it would continue running until it completed its work in the kernel or voluntarily relinquished control. If the higher priority process waiting to run is a text editor in which the user is typing or an MP3 player ready to refill its audio buffer, the result is poor interactive performance. This way non-preemptive kernel was a major drawback at that time.
Imagine the simple view of preemptive multi-tasking. We have two user tasks, both of which are running all the time without using any I/O or performing kernel calls. Those two tasks don't have to do anything special to be able to run on a multi-tasking operating system. The kernel, typically based on a timer interrupt, simply decides that it's time for one task to pause to let another one run. The task in question is completely unaware that anything happened.
However, most tasks make occasional requests of the kernel via syscalls. When this happens, the same user context exists, but the CPU is running kernel code on behalf of that task.
Older Linux kernels would never allow preemption of a task while it was busy running kernel code. (Note that I/O operations always voluntarily re-schedule. I'm talking about a case where the kernel code has some CPU-intensive operation like sorting a list.)
If the system allows that task to be preempted while it is running kernel code, then we have what is called a "preemptive kernel." Such a system is immune to unpredictable delays that can be encountered during syscalls, so it might be better suited for embedded or real-time tasks.
For example, if on a particular CPU there are two tasks available, and one takes a syscall that takes 5ms to complete, and the other is an MP3 player application that needs to feed the audio pipe every 2ms, you might hear stuttering audio.
The argument against preemption is that all kernel code that might be called in task context must be able to survive preemption-- there's a lot of poor device driver code, for example, that might be better off if it's always able to complete an operation before allowing some other task to run on that processor. (With multi-processor systems the rule rather than the exception these days, all kernel code must be re-entrant, so that argument isn't as relevant today.) Additionally, if the same goal could be met by improving the syscalls with bad latency, perhaps preemption is unnecessary.
A compromise is CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, which allows a task-switch at certain points inside the kernel, but not everywhere. If there are only a small number of places where kernel code might get bogged down, this is a cheap way of reducing latency while keeping the complexity manageable.
Traditional unix kernels had a single lock, which was held by a thread while kernel code was running. Therefore no other kernel code could interrupt that thread.
This made designing the kernel easier, since you knew that while one thread using kernel resources, no other thread was. Therefore the different threads cannot mess up each others work.
In single processor systems this doesn't cause too many problems.
However in multiprocessor systems, you could have a situation where several threads on different processors or cores all wanted to run kernel code at the same time. This means that depending on the type of workload, you could have lots of processors, but all of them spend most of their time waiting for each other.
In Linux 2.6, the kernel resources were divided up into much smaller units, protected by individual locks, and the kernel code was reviewed to make sure that locks were only held while the corresponding resources were in use. So now different processors only have to wait for each other if they want access to the same resource (for example hardware resource).
The preemption allows the kernel to give the IMPRESSION of parallelism: you've got only one processor (let's say a decade ago), but you feel like all your processes are running simulaneously. That's because the kernel preempts (ie, take the execution out of) the execution from one process to give it to the next one (maybe according to their priority).
EDIT Not preemptive kernels wait for processes to give back the hand (ie, during syscalls), so if your process computes a lot of data and doesn't call any kind of yield function, the other processes won't be able to execute to execute their calls. Such systems are said to be cooperative because they ask for the cooperation of the processes to ensure the equity of the execution time
EDIT 2 The main goal of preemption is to improve the reactivity of the system among multiple tasks, so that's good for end-users, whereas on the other-hand, servers want to achieve the highest througput, so they don't need it: (from the Linux kernel configuration)
Preemptible kernel (low-latency desktop)
Voluntary kernel preemption (desktop)
No forced preemption (server)
The linux kernel is monolithic and give a little computing timespan to all the running process sequentially. It means that the processes (eg. the programs) do not run concurrently, but they are given a give timespan regularly to execute their logic. The main problem is that some logic can take longer to terminate and prevent the kernel to allow time for the next process. This results in system "lags".
A preemtive kernel has the ability to switch context. It means that it can stop a "hanging" process even if it is not finished, and give the computing time to the next process as expected. The "hanging" process will continue to execute when its time has come without any problem.
Practically, it means that the kernel has the ability to achieve tasks in realtime, which is particularly interesting for audio recording and editing.
The ubuntu studio districution packages a preemptive kernel as well as a buch of quality free software devoted to audio and video edition.
It means that the operating system scheduler is free to suspend the execution of the running processes to give the CPU to another process whenever it wants; the normal way to do this is to give to each process that is waiting for the CPU a "quantum" of CPU time to run. After it has expired the scheduler takes back the control (and the running process cannot avoid this) to give another quantum to another process.
This method is often compared with the cooperative multitasking, in which processes keep the CPU for all the time they need, without being interrupted, and to let other applications run they have to call explicitly some kind of "yield" function; naturally, to avoid giving the feeling of the system being stuck, well-behaved applications will yield the CPU often. Still,if there's a bug in an application (e.g. an infinite loop without yield calls) the whole system will hang, since the CPU is completely kept by the faulty program.
Almost all recent desktop OSes use preemptive multitasking, that, even if it's more expensive in terms of resources, is in general more stable (it's more difficult for a sigle faulty app to hang the whole system, since the OS is always in control). On the other hand, when the resources are tight and the application are expected to be well-behaved, cooperative multitasking is used. Windows 3 was a cooperative multitasking OS; a more recent example can be RockBox, an opensource PMP firmware replacement.
I think everyone did a good job of explaining this but I'm just gonna add little more info. in context of Linux IRQ, interrupt and kernel scheduler.
Process scheduler is the component of the OS that is responsible for deciding if current running job/process should continue to run and if not which process should run next.
preemptive scheduler is a scheduler which allows to be interrupted and a running process then can change it's state and then let another process to run (since the current one was interrupted).
On the other hand, non-preemptive scheduler can't take away CPU away from a process (aka cooperative)
FYI, the name word "cooperative" can be confusing because the word's meaning does not clearly indicate what scheduler actually does.
For example, Older Windows like 3.1 had cooperative schedulers.
Full credit to wonderful article here
I think it became preemptive from 2.6. preemptive means when a new process is ready to run, the cpu will be allocated to the new process, it doesn't need the running process be co-operative and give up the cpu.
Linux kernel is preemptive means that The kernel supports preemption.
For example, there are two processes P1(higher priority) and P2(lower priority) which are doing read system calls and they are running in kernel mode. Suppose P2 is running and is in the kernel mode and P2 is scheduled to run.
If kernel preemption is available, then preemption can happen at the kernel level i.e P2 can get preempted and but to sleep and the P1 can continue to run.
If kernel preemption is not available, since P2 is in kernel mode, system simply waits till P2 is complete and then