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.
Related
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.
When a thread does something that may cause it to become blocked locally, for example, waiting for another thread in its process to complete some work, it calls a run-time system procedure. This procedure checks to see if the thread must be put into blocked state. If so, it stores the thread's registers in the thread table, looks in the table for a ready thread to run, and reloads the machine registers with the new thread's saved values. As soon as the stack pointer and program counter have been switched, the new thread comes to life again automatically. If the machine happens to have an instruction to store all the registers and another one to load them all, the entire thread switch can be done in just a handful of instructions. Doing thread switching like this is at least an order of magnitude-maybe more-faster than trapping to the kernel and is a strong argument in favor of user-level threads packages.
Source: Modern Operating Systems (Andrew S. Tanenbaum | Herbert Bos)
The above argument is made in favor of user-level threads. The user-level thread implementation is depicted as kernel managing all the processes, where individual processes can have their own run-time (made available by a library package) that manages all the threads in that process.
Of course, merely calling a function in the run-time than trapping to kernel might have a few less instructions to execute but why the difference is so huge?
For example, if threads are implemented in kernel space, every time a thread has to be created the program is required to make a system call. Yes. But the call only involves adding an entry to the thread table with certain attributes (which is also the case in user space threads). When a thread switch has to happen, kernel can simply do what the run-time (at user-space) would do. The only real difference I can see here is that the kernel is being involved in all this. How can the performance difference be so significant?
Threads implemented as a library package in user space perform significantly better. Why?
They're not.
The fact is that most task switches are caused by threads blocking (having to wait for IO from disk or network, or from user, or for time to pass, or for some kind of semaphore/mutex shared with a different process, or some kind of pipe/message/packet from a different process) or caused by threads unblocking (because whatever they were waiting for happened); and most reasons to block and unblock involve the kernel in some way (e.g. device drivers, networking stack, ...); so doing task switches in kernel when you're already in the kernel is faster (because it avoids the overhead of switching to user-space and back for no sane reason).
Where user-space task switching "works" is when kernel isn't involved at all. This mostly only happens when someone failed to do threads properly (e.g. they've got thousands of threads and coarse-grained locking and are constantly switching between threads due to lock contention, instead of something sensible like a "worker thread pool"). It also only works when all threads are the same priority - you don't want a situation where very important threads belonging to one process don't get CPU time because very unimportant threads belonging to a different process are hogging the CPU (but that's exactly what happens with user-space threading because one process has no idea about threads belonging to a different process).
Mostly; user-space threading is a silly broken mess. It's not faster or "significantly better"; it's worse.
When a thread does something that may cause it to become blocked locally, for example, waiting for another thread in its process to complete some work, it calls a run-time system procedure. This procedure checks to see if the thread must be put into blocked state. If so, it stores the thread's registers in the thread table, looks in the table for a ready thread to run, and reloads the machine registers with the new thread's saved values. As soon as the stack pointer and program counter have been switched, the new thread comes to life again automatically. If the machine happens to have an instruction to store all the registers and another one to load them all, the entire thread switch can be done in just a handful of instructions. Doing thread switching like this is at least an order of magnitude-maybe more-faster than trapping to the kernel and is a strong argument in favor of user-level threads packages.
This is talking about a situation where the CPU itself does the actual task switch (and either the kernel or a user-space library tells the CPU when to do a task switch to what). This has some relatively interesting history behind it...
In the 1980s Intel designed a CPU ("iAPX" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432 ) for "secure object oriented programming"; where each object has its own isolated memory segments and its own privilege level, and can transfer control directly to other objects. The general idea being that you'd have a single-tasking system consisting of global objects using cooperating flow control. This failed for multiple reasons, partly because all the protection checks ruined performance, and partly because the majority of software at the time was designed for "multi-process preemptive time sharing, with procedural programming".
When Intel designed protected mode (80286, 80386) they still had hopes for "single-tasking system consisting of global objects using cooperating flow control". They included hardware task/object switching, local descriptor table (so each task/object can have its own isolated segments), call gates (so tasks/objects can transfer control to each other directly), and modified a few control flow instructions (call far and jmp far) to support the new control flow. Of course this failed for the same reason iAPX failed; and (as far as I know) nobody has ever used these things for the "global objects using cooperative flow control" they were originally designed for. Some people (e.g. very early Linux) did try to use the hardware task switching for more traditional "multi-process preemptive time sharing, with procedural programming" systems; but found that it was slow because the hardware task switch did too many protection checks that could be avoided by software task switching and saved/reloaded too much state that could be avoided by a software task switching;p and didn't do any of the other stuff needed for a task switch (e.g. keeping statistics of CPU time used, saving/restoring debug registers, etc).
Now.. Andrew S. Tanenbaum is a micro-kernel advocate. His ideal system consists of isolated pieces in user-space (processes, services, drivers, ...) communicating via. synchronous messaging. In practice (ignoring superficial differences in terminology) this "isolated pieces in user-space communicating via. synchronous messaging" is almost entirely identical to Intel's twice failed "global objects using cooperative flow control".
Mostly; in theory (if you ignore all the practical problems, like CPU not saving all of the state, and wanting to do extra work on task switches like tracking statistics), for a specific type of OS that Andrew S. Tanenbaum prefers (micro-kernel with synchronous message passing, without any thread priorities), it's plausible that the paragraph quoted above is more than just wishful thinking.
I think the answer to this can use a lot of OS and parallel distributive computing knowledge (And I am not sure about the answer but I will try my best)
So if you think about it. The library package will have a greater amount of performance than you write in the kernel itself. In the package thing, interrupt given by this code will be held at once and al the execution will be done. While when you write in kernel different other interrupts can come before. Plus accessing threads again and again is harsh on the kernel since everytime there will be an interrupt. I hope it will be a better view.
it's not correct to say the user-space threads are better that the kernel-space threads since each one has its own pros and cons.
in terms of user-space threads, as the application is responsible for managing thread, its easier to implement such threads and that kind of threads have not much reliance on OS. however, you are not able to use the advantages of multi processing.
In contrary, the kernel space modules are handled by OS, so you need to implement them according to the OS that you use, and it would be a more complicated task. However, you have more control over your threads.
for more comprehensive tutorial, take a look here.
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
I was looking at the differences between user-level threads and kernel-level threads, which I basically understood.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
An answer to a previously asked question (similar to mine) was something like:
No modern operating system actually maps n user-level threads to 1
kernel-level thread.
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
Could you help me understand this, please?
I strongly recommend Modern Operating Systems 4th Edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum (starring in shows such as the debate about Linux; also participating: Linus Torvalds). Costs a whole lot of bucks but it's definitely worth it if you really want to know stuff. For eager students and desperate enthusiasts it's great.
Your questions answered
[...] what's not clear to me is the point of implementing User-level threads
at all.
Read my post. It is comprehensive, I daresay.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a
single process, then which benefits could I experience?
Read the section "Disadvantages" below.
I have read a couple of articles that stated that user-level
implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not
perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to
block).
Read the subsection "No coordination with system calls" in "Disadvantages."
All citations are from the book I recommended in the top of this answer, Chapter 2.2.4, "Implementing Threads in User Space."
Advantages
Enables threads on systems without threads
The first advantage is that user-level threads are a way to work with threads on a system without threads.
The first, and most obvious, advantage is that
a user-level threads package can be implemented on an operating system that does not support threads. All operating systems used to
fall into this category, and even now some still do.
No kernel interaction required
A further benefit is the light overhead when switching threads, as opposed to switching to the kernel mode, doing stuff, switching back, etc. The lighter thread switching is described like this in the book:
When a thread does something that may cause it to become blocked
locally, for example, waiting for another thread in its process to
complete some work, it calls a run-time system procedure. This
procedure checks to see if the thread must be put into blocked state.
If, so it stores the thread’s registers (i.e., its own) [...] and
reloads the machine registers with the new thread’s saved values. As soon as the stack
pointer and program counter have been switched, the new thread comes
to life again automatically. If the machine happens to have an
instruction to store all the registers and another one to load them
all, the entire thread switch can be done in just a handful of in-
structions. Doing thread switching like this is at least an order of
magnitude—maybe more—faster than trapping to the kernel and is a
strong argument in favor of user-level threads packages.
This efficiency is also nice because it spares us from incredibly heavy context switches and all that stuff.
Individually adjusted scheduling algorithms
Also, hence there is no central scheduling algorithm, every process can have its own scheduling algorithm and is way more flexible in its variety of choices. In addition, the "private" scheduling algorithm is way more flexible concerning the information it gets from the threads. The number of information can be adjusted manually and per-process, so it's very finely-grained. This is because, again, there is no central scheduling algorithm needing to fit the needs of every process; it has to be very general and all and must deliver adequate performance in every case. User-level threads allow an extremely specialized scheduling algorithm.
This is only restricted by the disadvantage "No automatic switching to the scheduler."
They [user-level threads] allow each process to have its own
customized scheduling algorithm. For some applications, for example,
those with a garbage-collector thread, not having to worry about a
thread being stopped at an inconvenient moment is a plus. They also
scale better, since kernel threads invariably require some table space
and stack space in the kernel, which can be a problem if there are a
very large number of threads.
Disadvantages
No coordination with system calls
The user-level scheduling algorithm has no idea if some thread has called a blocking read system call. OTOH, a kernel-level scheduling algorithm would've known because it can be notified by the system call; both belong to the kernel code base.
Suppose that a thread reads from the keyboard before any keys have
been hit. Letting the thread actually make the system call is
unacceptable, since this will stop all the threads. One of the main
goals of having threads in the first place was to allow each one to
use blocking calls, but to prevent one blocked thread from affecting
the others. With blocking system calls, it is hard to see how this
goal can be achieved readily.
He goes on that system calls could be made non-blocking but that would be very inconvenient and compatibility to existing OSes would be drastically hurt.
Mr Tanenbaum also says that the library wrappers around the system calls (as found in glibc, for example) could be modified to predict when a system cal blocks using select but he utters that this is inelegant.
Building upon that, he says that threads do block often. Often blocking requires many system calls. And many system calls are bad. And without blocking, threads become less useful:
For applications that are essentially entirely CPU bound and rarely
block, what is the point of having threads at all? No one would
seriously propose computing the first n prime numbers or playing chess
using threads because there is nothing to be gained by doing it that
way.
Page faults block per-process if unaware of threads
The OS has no notion of threads. Therefore, if a page fault occurs, the whole process will be blocked, effectively blocking all user-level threads.
Somewhat analogous to the problem of blocking system calls is the
problem of page faults. [...] If the program calls or jumps to an
instruction that is not in memory, a page fault occurs and the
operating system will go and get the missing instruction (and its
neighbors) from disk. [...] The process is blocked while the necessary
instruction is being located and read in. If a thread causes a page
fault, the kernel, unaware of even the existence of threads, naturally
blocks the entire process until the disk I/O is complete, even though
other threads might be runnable.
I think this can be generalized to all interrupts.
No automatic switching to the scheduler
Since there is no per-process clock interrupt, a thread acquires the CPU forever unless some OS-dependent mechanism (such as a context switch) occurs or it voluntarily releases the CPU.
This prevents usual scheduling algorithms from working, including the Round-Robin algorithm.
[...] if a thread starts running, no other thread in that process
will ever run unless the first thread voluntarily gives up the CPU.
Within a single process, there are no clock interrupts, making it
impossible to schedule processes round-robin fashion (taking turns).
Unless a thread enters the run-time system of its own free will, the scheduler will never get a chance.
He says that a possible solution would be
[...] to have the run-time system request a clock signal (interrupt) once a
second to give it control, but this, too, is crude and messy to
program.
I would even go on further and say that such a "request" would require some system call to happen, whose drawback is already explained in "No coordination with system calls." If no system call then the program would need free access to the timer, which is a security hole and unacceptable in modern OSes.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
User-level threads largely came into the mainstream due to Ada and its requirement for threads (tasks in Ada terminology). At the time, there were few multiprocessor systems and most multiprocessors were of the master/slave variety. Kernel threads simply did not exist. User threads had to be created to implement languages like Ada.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
If you have kernel threads, threads multiple threads within a single process can run simultaneously. In user threads, the threads always execute interleaved.
Using threads can simplify some types of programming.
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
That is true on Unix and maybe not all unix implementations. User threads on many operating systems function perfectly fine with blocking I/O.
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
In user threads. there is never parallel execution. In kernel threads, the can be parallel execution IF there are multiple processors. On a single processor system, there is not much advantage to using kernel threads over single threads (contra: note the blocking I/O issue on Unix and user threads).
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
In user threads, the process manages its own "threads" by interleaving execution within itself. The process can only have a thread run in the processor that the process is running in.
If the operating system provides system services to schedule code to run on a different processor, user threads could run on multiple processors.
I conclude by saying that for practicable purposes there are no advantages to user threads over kernel threads. There are those that will assert that there are performance advantages, but for there to be such an advantage it would be system dependent.
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