I have a question regarding STR (Suspend To RAM) in the Linux kernel.
I am working on a small embedded Linux (Kernel 3.4.22) and I want to implement a mechanism that will put the system into sleep (suspend to ram) while it has nothing to do.
This is done in order to save power.
The HW support RAM self-refresh meaning its content will stay persistence.
And I'll take care of all the rest things which should be done (e.g keeping CPU context etc…)
I want to trigger the Kernel PM (power management) subsystem from within the idle loop.
When the system has nothing to do, it should go into sleep.
The HW also supports a way to wake up the system.
Doing some research, I have found out that Linux gives an option for the user space to switch to STR by writing "echo "mem" > /sys/power/state".
This will trigger the PM subsystem and will perform the relevant callbacks.
My questions are:
Is there any other standard alternative to go into STR besides writing to the above proc?
Did anyone tried to put the system into STR from the idle loop code ?
Thanks,
Why would you need another method? Linux treats everything as a file. Is it any surprise that the contents of a psudo-file dictate the state of the system? Check for yourself. pm-utils is a popular tool set for managing the state of the system. All the commands are just calls to /sys files.
This policy is actually platform dependent. You would have to look at the cpuidle driver for your platform to understand what it is doing. For example, on atmel platforms, it is using both RAM self refresh and WFI.
Related
I am a complete newbie to operating system and aiming to write my own kernel.
I understand that i will have to write my own device drivers as well.
How do i start with writing my driver?
The tasks of project are as follows.
1.Defining GDT in assembly language
2.Creating boot sector
3.Interrupt handling
4.Screen Driver
5.Keyboard driver
6.Hard disk driver
7.File system
8.I/O programming
9.Physical memory management
Also is it possible to do this in 3 months ( team of 2 )
As you know (or about to find out) OSes are extremely complicated and interconnected. For example, how are you going to have a working Keyboard driver before you have implemented interrupt handling?
It sounds like your question actually is: "How do I start writing my own OS?" You start by reading "Required Knowledge," "Beginner Mistakes," and "Getting Started" on osdev.
Good luck, and it is going to take a long time... especially if you are learning as you go (which is okay, since your goal is learning and not to make a commercial OS).
Edit: Modifying the Linux kernel is a good way to learn about the internals of an OS. It will let you focus on individual aspects (such as just writing a keyboard driver) and your work environment will be sane. Depending on what you want to do, you will be able to further ease development by creating a kernel module instead directly modifying the kernel.
Define your project and its scope
Set up your work environment (my suggestion, run Ubuntu Server in QEMU)
Learn how to either boot a custom kernel or use the module system
Get to work!
You can try looking into contributing to minix (http://www.minix3.org/)
There are a loads of things that are needed to be done .Have a look at (http://wiki.minix3.org/Wishlist).
I'm working with ELinux kernel on ARM cortex-A8.
I know how the bootloader works and what job it's doing. But i've got a question - why do we need bootloader, why was the bootloader born?
Why we can't directly load the kernel into RAM from flash memory without bootloader? If we load it what will happen? In fact, processor will not support it, but why are we following the procedure?
In the context of Linux, the boot loader is responsible for some predefined tasks. As this question is arm tagged, I think that ARM booting might be a useful resource. Specifically, the boot loader was/is responsible for setting up an ATAG list that describing the amount of RAM, a kernel command line, and other parameters. One of the most important parameters is the machine type. With device trees, an entire description of the board is passed. This makes a stock ARM Linux impossible to boot with out some code to setup the parameters as described.
The parameters allows one generic Linux to support multiple devices. For instance, an ARM Debian kernel can support hundreds of different board types. Uboot or other boot loader can dynamically determine this information or it can be hard coded for the board.
You might also like to look at bootloader info page here at stack overflow.
A basic system might be able to setup ATAGS and copy NOR flash to SRAM. However, it is usually a little more complex than this. Linux needs RAM setup, so you may have to initialize an SDRAM controller. If you use NAND flash, you have to handle bad blocks and the copy may be a little more complex than memcpy().
Linux often has some latent driver bugs where a driver will assume that a clock is initialized. For instance if Uboot always initializes an Ethernet clock for a particular machine, the Linux Ethernet driver may have neglected to setup this clock. This can be especially true with clock trees.
Some systems require boot image formats that are not supported by Linux; for example a special header which can initialize hardware immediately; like configuring the devices to read initial code from. Additionally, often there is hardware that should be configured immediately; a boot loader can do this quickly whereas the normal structure of Linux may delay this significantly resulting in I/O conflicts, etc.
From a pragmatic perspective, it is simpler to use a boot loader. However, there is nothing to prevent you from altering Linux's source to boot directly from it; although it maybe like pasting the boot loader code directly to the start of Linux.
See Also: Coreboot, Uboot, and Wikipedia's comparison. Barebox is a lesser known, but well structured and modern boot loader for the ARM. RedBoot is also used in some ARM systems; RedBoot partitions are supported in the kernel tree.
A boot loader is a computer program that loads the main operating system or runtime environment for the computer after completion of the self-tests.
^ From Wikipedia Article
So basically bootloader is doing just what you wanted - copying data from flash into operating memory. It's really that simple.
If you want to know more about boostrapping the OS, I highly recommend you read the linked article. Boot phase consists, apart from tests, also of checking peripherals and some other things. Skipping them makes sense only on very simple embedded devices, and that's why their bootloaders are even simpler:
Some embedded systems do not require a noticeable boot sequence to begin functioning and when turned on may simply run operational programs that are stored in ROM.
The same source
The primary bootloader is usually built in into the silicon and performs the load of the first USER code that will be run in the system.
The bootloader exists because there is no standardized protocol for loading the first code, since it is chip dependent. Sometimes the code can be loaded through a serial port, a flash memory, or even a hard drive. It is bootloader function to locate it.
Once the user code is loaded and running, the bootloader is no longer used and the correctness of the system execution is user responsibility.
In the embedded linux chain, the primary bootloader will setup and run the Uboot. Then Uboot will find the linux kernel and load it.
Why we can't directly load the kernel into RAM from flash memory without bootloader? If we load it what will happen? In fact, processor will not support it, but why are we following the procedure?
Bartek, Artless, and Felipe all give parts of the picture.
Every embedded processor type (E.G. 386EX, Coretex-A53, EM5200) will do something automatically when it is reset or powered on. Sometimes that something is different depending on whether the power is cycled or the device is reset. Some embedded processors allow you to change that something based on voltages applied to different pins when the device is powered or reset.
Regardless, there is a limited amount of something that a processor can do, because of the physical space on-processor required to define that something, whether it is on-chip FLASH, instruction micro-code, or some other mechanism.
This limit means that the something is
fixed purpose, does one thing as quickly as possible.
limited in scope and capability, typically loading a small block of code (often a few kilobytes or less) into a fixed memory location and executing from the start of the loaded code.
unmodifiable.
So what a processor does in response to reset or power-cycle cannot be changed, and cannot do very much, and we don't want it to automatically copy hundreds of megabytes or gigabytes into memory which may not exist or may not be initialized, and which could take a looooong time.
So....
We set up a small program which is smaller than the smallest size permitted across all of the devices we are going to use. That program is stored wherever the something needs it to be.
Sometimes the small program is U-Boot. Sometimes even U-Boot is too big for initial load, so the small program then in turn loads U-Boot.
The point is that whatever gets loaded by the something, is modifiable as needed for a particular system. If it is U-Boot, great, if not, it knows where to load the main operating system or where to load U-Boot (or some other bootloader).
U-Boot (speaking of bootloaders in general) then configures a minimal set of devices, memory, chip settings, etc., to enable the main OS to be loaded and started. The main OS init takes care of any additional configuration or initialization.
So the sequence is:
Processor power-on or reset
Something loads initial boot code (or U-Boot style embedded bootloader)
Initial boot code (may not be needed)
U-Boot (or other general embedded bootloader)
Linux init
The kernel requires the hardware on which you are working to be in a particular state. All the hardware you used needs to be checked for its state and initialized for its further operation. This is one of the main reasons to use a boot loader in an embedded (or any other environment), apart from its use to load a kernel image into the RAM.
When you turn on a system, the RAM is also not in a useful state (fully initialized to use) for us to load kernel into it. Therefore, we cannot load a kernel directly (to answer your question)and thus arises the need for a construct to initialize it.
Apart from what is stated in all the other answers - which is correct - in some cases the system has to go through different execution modes, take as example TrustZone for secure ARM chips. It is possible to still consider it as sort of HW initialization, but what makes it peculiar is the fact that there are additional limitations (ex: memory available) that make it impractical, if not impossible, to do everything in a single binary, thus multiple stages of bootloader are available.
Furthermore, for security reason, each of them is signed and can perform its job only if it meets the security requirements.
Friends, I am working on an in-house architectural simulator which is used to simulate the timing-effect of a code running on different architectural parameters like core, memory hierarchy and interconnects.
I am working on a module takes the actual trace of a running program from an emulator like "PinTool" and "qemu-linux-user" and feed this trace to the simulator.
Till now my approach was like this :
1) take objdump of a binary executable and parse this information.
2) Now the emulator has to just feed me an instruction-pointer and other info like load-address/store-address.
Such approaches work only if the program content is known.
But now I have been trying to take traces of an executable running on top of a standard linux-kernel. The problem now is that the base kernel image does not contain the code for LKM(Loadable Kernel Modules). Also the daemons are not known when starting a kernel.
So, my approach to this solution is :
1) use qemu to emulate a machine.
2) When an instruction is encountered for the first time, I will parse it and save this info. for later.
3) create a helper function which sends the ip, load/store address when an instruction is executed.
i am stuck in step2. how do i differentiate between different processes from qemu which is just an emulator and does not know anything about the guest OS ??
I can modify the scheduler of the guest OS but I am really not able to figure out the way forward.
Sorry if the question is very lengthy. I know I could have abstracted some part but felt that some part of it gives an explanation of the context of the problem.
In the first case, using qemu-linux-user to perform user mode emulation of a single program, the task is quite easy because the memory is linear and there is no virtual memory involved in the emulator. The second case of whole system emulation is a lot more complex, because you basically have to parse the addresses out of the kernel structures.
If you can get the virtual addresses directly out of QEmu, your job is a bit easier; then you just need to identify the process and everything else functions just like in the single-process case. You might be able to get the PID by faking a system call to get_pid().
Otherwise, this all seems quite a bit similar to debugging a system from a physical memory dump. There are some tools for this task. They are probably too slow to run for every instruction, though, but you can look for hints there.
Here is from Wiki .
"In computing, an executable file causes a computer "to perform indicated tasks according to encoded instructions," ( Machine Code ?? )
"Modern operating systems retain control over the computer's resources, requiring that individual programs make system calls to access privileged resources. Since each operating system family features its own system call architecture, executable files are generally tied to specific operating systems."
Well this is my perspective .
Executables cannot be Machine Code as they need to tal to the OS for hardware services ( system calls) Hence executable is just not yet "Machine Code" ... Perhaps it is like some part of the code is actual Machine Code and some parts are just meant to call the Machine code embedded in the Operating system ? Overall it contains some junks of Machine Code - and some junks of codes to call the operating system .
Edited after Damon's Answer :
In the end OS is a set of machine codes . Basically OS would be doing the job of copy pasting user's Machine Code ( created by C Compiler ) and then if the instruction is a system call , the transfer goes to OS memory region for handling it . Now the question is what Machine Code generated in C can do this part ? Like asking to transfer control to OS etc - I suppose its system calls at higher abstraction but under the hood - how does it work .
I get a feeling its similar to chicken egg problem , C creates OS and C uses OS Cant find the exactly how the process goes .
Can anyone break the puzzle for me ?
One thing does not exclude the other. Executables are (unless they are some form of bytecode running in a virtual machine) machine code. However, there are different kinds of instructions, some of which are not usable at certain privilegue levels.
That is where the operating system comes in, it is "machine code" that runs at the highest privilegue level, working as arbiter for the "important" parts and tasks, such as deciding who gets CPU time and what value goes into some hardware register.
(originally comment, made an answer by request)
EDIT: About your extended question, this works approximately as follows. When the computer is turned on, the processor runs at its highest privilegue level. In this "mode", the BIOS, the boot loader, and the operating system can do just what they want. This sounds great, but you don't want any kind of code being able to do just whatever it wants.
For example, the code can tell the MMU which memory pages are allowed to be read or written to, and which ones are not. Or, it can define what address is called if "something special" such as a trap or interrupt happens. Or, it can directly write to some special memory addresses that map ports of some devices (disk, network, whatever).
Eventually, the OS switches to "unprivileged" mode and calls some non-OS code. When a trap or interrupt happens, execution is interrupted and continues elsewhere (as specified by the OS previously), and the privilege level is upped again. Once the interrupt has been dealt with, privilege is taken away, and user code is called again.
If a user program needs the OS to do something "OS like", it sets up parameters according to an agreed scheme (for example in some particular registers) and executes a trap instruction.
This is for example how things like multithreading or virtual memory are implemented. In regular intervals, a timer fires off an interrupt, which stops execution of "normal" code, and calls some code in the kernel (in privileged mode). That code then decides what user process control should returned to, after some kind of priority scheme. Those are the "CPU time slices" that are handed out.
If some process reads from or writes to a page that it isn't allowed, a trap is generated by the MMU. The OS then looks at what happened and where, and decides whether to load some data from disk into some memory region (and possibly purge something else) and change the process' mappings, or whether to kill the process with a "segmentation fault" error.
Of course in reality, it is a million times more complicated, but in principle that's about as it works.
It does not really matter whether the OS or the programs were originally written in C or with an assembler. To the processor, it's just a sequence of machine instructions. Even a python or perl script is "just machine instructions" in the end, only with a detour via the interpreter.
Is it possible to 'hibernate' a process in linux?
Just like 'hibernate' in laptop, I would to write all the memory used by a process to disk, free up the RAM. And then later on, I can 'resume the process', i.e, reading all the data from memory and put it back to RAM and I can continue with my process?
I used to maintain CryoPID, which is a program that does exactly what you are talking about. It writes the contents of a program's address space, VDSO, file descriptor references and states to a file that can later be reconstructed. CryoPID started when there were no usable hooks in Linux itself and worked entirely from userspace (actually, it still does work, depending on your distro / kernel / security settings).
Problems were (indeed) sockets, pending RT signals, numerous X11 issues, the glibc caching getpid() implementation amongst many others. Randomization (especially VDSO) turned out to be insurmountable for the few of us working on it after Bernard walked away from it. However, it was fun and became the topic of several masters thesis.
If you are just contemplating a program that can save its running state and re-start directly into that state, its far .. far .. easier to just save that information from within the program itself, perhaps when servicing a signal.
I'd like to put a status update here, as of 2014.
The accepted answer suggests CryoPID as a tool to perform Checkpoint/Restore, but I found the project to be unmantained and impossible to compile with recent kernels.
Now, I found two actively mantained projects providing the application checkpointing feature.
The first, the one I suggest 'cause I have better luck running it, is CRIU
that performs checkpoint/restore mainly in userspace, and requires the kernel option CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE enabled to work.
Checkpoint/Restore In Userspace, or CRIU (pronounced kree-oo, IPA: /krɪʊ/, Russian: криу), is a software tool for Linux operating system. Using this tool, you can freeze a running application (or part of it) and checkpoint it to a hard drive as a collection of files. You can then use the files to restore and run the application from the point it was frozen at. The distinctive feature of the CRIU project is that it is mainly implemented in user space.
The latter is DMTCP; quoting from their main page:
DMTCP (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) is a tool to transparently checkpoint the state of multiple simultaneous applications, including multi-threaded and distributed applications. It operates directly on the user binary executable, without any Linux kernel modules or other kernel modifications.
There is also a nice Wikipedia page on the argument: Application_checkpointing
The answers mentioning ctrl-z are really talking about stopping the process with a signal, in this case SIGTSTP. You can issue a stop signal with kill:
kill -STOP <pid>
That will suspend execution of the process. It won't immediately free the memory used by it, but as memory is required for other processes the memory used by the stopped process will be gradually swapped out.
When you want to wake it up again, use
kill -CONT <pid>
The more complicated solutions, like CryoPID, are really only needed if you want the stopped process to be able to survive a system shutdown/restart - it doesn't sound like you need that.
Linux Kernel has now partially implemented the checkpoint/restart futures:https://ckpt.wiki.kernel.org/, the status is here.
Some useful information are in the lwn(linux weekly net):
http://lwn.net/Articles/375855/ http://lwn.net/Articles/412749/ ......
So the answer is "YES"
The issue is restoring the streams - files and sockets - that the program has open.
When your whole OS hibernates, the local files and such can obviously be restored. Network connections don't, but then the code that accesses the internet is typically more error checking and such and survives the error conditions (or ought to).
If you did per-program hibernation (without application support), how would you handle open files? What if another process accesses those files in the interim? etc?
Maintaining state when the program is not loaded is going to be difficult.
Simply suspending the threads and letting it get swapped to disk would have much the same effect?
Or run the program in a virtual machine and let the VM handle suspension.
Short answer is "yes, but not always reliably". Check out CryoPID:
http://cryopid.berlios.de/
Open files will indeed be the most common problem. CryoPID states explicitly:
Open files and offsets are restored.
Temporary files that have been
unlinked and are not accessible on the
filesystem are always saved in the
image. Other files that do not exist
on resume are not yet restored.
Support for saving file contents for
such situations is planned.
The same issues will also affect TCP connections, though CryoPID supports tcpcp for connection resuming.
I extended Cryopid producing a package called Cryopid2 available from SourceForge. This can
migrate a process as well as hibernating it (along with any open files and sockets - data
in sockets/pipes is sucked into the process on hibernation and spat back into these when
process is restarted).
The reason I have not been active with this project is I am not a kernel developer - both
this (and/or the original cryopid) need to get someone on board who can get them running
with the lastest kernels (e.g. Linux 3.x).
The Cryopid method does work - and is probably the best solution to general purpose process
hibernation/migration in Linux I have come across.
The short answer is "yes." You might start by looking at this for some ideas: ELF executable reconstruction from a core image (http://vx.netlux.org/lib/vsc03.html)
As others have noted, it's difficult for the OS to provide this functionality, because the application needs to have some error checking builtin to handle broken streams.
However, on a side note, some programming languages and tools that use virtual machines explicitly support this functionality, such as the Self programming language.
This is sort of the ultimate goal of clustered operating system. Mathew Dillon puts a lot of effort to implement something like this in his Dragonfly BSD project.
adding another workaround: you can use virtualbox. run your applications in a regular virtual machine and simply "save the machine state" whenever you want.
I know this is not an answer, but I thought it could be useful when there are no real options.
if for any reason you don't like virtualbox, vmware and Qemu are as good.
Ctrl-Z increases the chances the process's pages will be swapped, but it doesn't free the process's resources completely. The problem with freeing a process's resources completely is that things like file handles, sockets are kernel resources the process gets to use, but doesn't know how to persist on its own. So Ctrl-Z is as good as it gets.
There was some research on checkpoint/restore for Linux back in 2.2 and 2.4 days, but it never made it past prototype. It is possible (with the caveats described in the other answers) for certain values of possible - I you can write a kernel module to do it, it is possible. But for the common value of possible (can I do it from the shell on a commercial Linux distribution), it is not yet possible.
There's ctrl+z in linux, but i'm not sure it offers the features you specified. I suspect you asked this question since it doesn't