As program is stored on flash/disk. For it execution, program is loaded into virtual memory and is mapped to RAM by virtual manager. During its execution process is in RAM. Then where does virtual memory exist (where it has all .text, .data, .stack, .heap)?
The virtual memory is a view of the RAM plus maybe some swap space provided by a virtual memory manager. Modern OSs have virtual memory managers and provide virtual memory to processes so that the executing program can behave as if it had a contiguous address space whose size is not limited by the actual RAM. The pages or blocks making up the virtual memory can be mapped anywhere in the RAM, so that contiguos virtual pages need to be stored in contiguos RAM areas. Or they can be swapped out to page space or swap space, waiting there until needed, whereupon they're read by the OS and mapped to some RAM page.
When you say
During its execution process is in RAM.
This is not entirely correct. Some or all memory pages that belong to the process may be swapped out, as explained.
One more word concerning the answers and comments that say that "virtual" means it doesn't exist. This makes no sense. On the contrary, according to Webster:
being such in essence or effect ...
Hence virtual memory is something (therefore, it exists!) that behaves as if it were memory.
Virtual memory is just like an illusion of RAM. It uses paging to acquire additional RAM that could be used by the processes in operating system.
Virtual memory means memory you can access with "normal" momory access methods, although it isn't clear where the data is actually stored.
It may be
actually in RAM
in a swap area
in another file (memory mapped file)
and access to it will be handled appropriately.
It is a layer of, well, virtualization so that you as a programmer don't have to worry about where the data is actually put.
The original purpose was mainly to be able to provide more memory to processes than we actually have and to extend it with means of swap space, but there are even more:
The OS is free to use the RAM for whatever it seems necessary, e. g. caching. Under some circumstances, it may be more effective to use RAM for cache than for holding parts of a program which hasn't been used for a long time.
Provide additional memory to a program when it requests it: if you call malloc(), the program's library may request the OS to provide a part of memory which can be attached seamlessly into the address space.
Avoid stack overflow: if the stack grows larger and larger, the respective memory section may be extended as well transparently so that the program won't have to worry about it.
A system can even do "overcommitment" of memory: if a process requests a large amount of memory, the OS may say "yes, ok", i. e. provide the memory to the program. That means in the first place "allow the program to access a certain address space area", but this address space is not immediately backed by memory. Only as soon as the program accesses this memory the mapping will be done, and if this cannot be fulfilled, the program is crashed by the Out of emory killer (at least, under Linux).
All this works by page-wise (1 page = 4 kiB) assignment of physical memory to a program, viewed via the program's address space, and this in the amount and frequency as it is needed.
Related
If a process initially has a number of pages allocated to it in the heap, but a lot of the data in the pages has been deallocated, is there some sort of optimization that the OS does to consolidate the data into one page so that the other pages can be freed?
In general, nothing happens, the heap will continue to have "holes" in it.
Since the (virtual) memory addresses known by a process must remain valid, the operating system cannot perform "heap compaction" on its own. However, some runtimes like .Net do it.
If you are using C or C++, all you can hope for by default is that malloc() will be able to reuse previously deallocated chunks. But if your usage pattern is "allocate a lot of small objects then deallocate half of them at random," the memory utilization will probably not decrease much from the peak.
If a process initially has a number of pages allocated to it in the heap
A process will not initially have pages allocates in a heap.
is there some sort of optimization that the OS does to consolidate the data into one page so that the other pages can be freed
The operating system has no knowledge of user heaps. It allocates pages to the process. What that process does with those pages is up to it (i.e., use them for a heap, stack, code, etc.).
A process's heap manager can consolidate freed chunks of memory. When this occurs, it is normally done to fight heap fragmentation. However, I have never seen a heap manager on a paging system that unmaps pages once they are mapped by the operating system.
The heap of a process never has holes on it. The heap is part of the data segment allocated to a process, that grows dynamically upwards to the top of the stack segment, basically with the use of the sbrk(2) system call (that fixes a new size to the data segment) so the heap is a continuous segment (at least in terms of virtual address space) of allocated pages. malloc(3) never returns the heap space (or part of it) to the system. See malloc(3) for info about this. While there are memory allocators that allow a process to have several heaps (by means of allocating new memory segments, by use of the mmap(2) system call) the segments allocated by a memory allocator are commonly never returned back to the system.
What happens is that the memory allocator reuses the heap space allocated with sbrk(2) and mmap(2) and manages memory for being reused, but it is never returned back to the system.
But don't fear, as this is handled in a good and profitable way by the system, anyway.
That should not affect the overall system management, except from the fact that it consumes virtual address space, and probably page contents will end in the swap device if you don't use them until the process references them again and makes the system to reload them from the swap device(s). If your process doesn't reuse the holes it creates in the heap, the most probable destination is for the system to move them to the swap device and continue reusing it for other processes.
At this moment, I don't know if the system optimices swap allocation by not swapping out zeroed pages, as it does, for example, with text segments of executables (they never go to a swap device, because their contents are already swapped off in the executable file ---this was the reason you couldn't erase in ancient unices a program executable, or the reason there's not need anymore to use the sticky bit in frequently used programs---) but I think it doesn't (and the reason is that it's most improbable the unused pages will be zeroed by the application)
Be warned only in the case you have a 15Gb single process' heap use in your system and 90% of heap use is not in use most of the time. But think better in optimising the allocation resources because a process that consumes 15Gb of heap while most of the time 90%+ is unused, seems to be a poor design. If you have no other chance, simply provide enough swap space to your system to afford that.
There are few other threads on this subject but I couldn't find a clear answer.
On Linux, how can the virtual memory work when there is no swap partition to perform Paging, even no secondary I/O device (HDD, SSD, etc.)?
If I take my example: I'm running a custom distribution (from initramfs) on an embedded target which hasn't got any swap partition or secondary storage.
In top, I can clearly see that the running processes are consuming a lot more of virtual addresses (VIRT) than physical ones (RSS), e.g. 500MB vs 20MB.
Is the difference between VIRT and RSS just the memory allocated but never accessed (hence never mapped by the OS)? (memory over-commitment)
I thought Virtual Memory needed Paging (not talking about swapping) to work but I'm starting to believe that I was wrong (and that there is lot of crap online about Linux memory management).
Does it mean that a Page Fault in such configuration will systematically invoke the oom-killer?
Cheers
Virtual Memory is just what the process sees in its memory space. This includes a lot of things:
Actual used RAM
Swapped memory
Memory mapped real files
Memory mapped devices
Copy-on-write anonymous mmaps used for large mallocs
Copy-on-write memory from a forked process
Shared memory
Loaded libraries shared between processes
Only swapped pages and mmapped pages from real files requires hitting a disk on page fault.
If two processes share libc, they will immediately have VIRT > RSS without any overcommitment.
It sounds like you are suffering from the conflation of two distinct concepts: virtual memory and logical address translation.
In logical address translation (logical memory) the CPU presents to each process a unique linear address space. The operating system manage a set of page tables that translate logical addresses to physical memory.
Virtual memory is the process of simulating physical memory by using a secondary storage device. Virtual memory handles the situation where a logical address has no corresponding physical address.
Sadly, most processor documentation conflates those two term.
Virtually memory requires a secondary storage. Logical memory does not. Thus you can have logical memory translation when there is no secondary storage. Such translations can end up being called "virtual" when they are technically "logical."
In 4GB RAM system running linux, 3gb is given to user-space and 1gb to kernel, does it mean that even if kernel is using 50MB and user space is running low, user cannot use kernel space? if no, why? why cannot linux map their pages to user space?
The 3/1 separation refers to VIRTUAL memory. The virtual memory, however, is sparse. Meaning that even though there is "on paper" 1 GB, in practice a LOT less than that is used. Whenever possible, the "virtual" memory is backed by physical pages (meaning, if your virtual memory footprint is 50MB, then you're using 50 MB of physical memory), up until the point where there is no more physical memory, in which case you either A) spill over to swap or B) the system encounters a low memory condition and frees memory the hard way - by killing processes.
It gets more complicated. Virtual memory is not really used (committed) until actually used. THis means when you allcoate memory, you get an "IOU" or "promise" for memory, but the memory only gets consumed when you actually use the memory, as in write some value to it. Overall, however, you are correct in that there is segregation - at the hardware level - between kernel and user mode. In other words, of the 4GB addressable (assuming 32bit), the top 1GB, even though it is in your address space, is not accessible to you, and in practice belongs to the kernel. (The limit of 4 GB stems from 32-bit pointers - for 64 bits, it's effectively 48, which means 256TB, btw, 128TB user, 128TB kernel). Further, this 1GB of your space that is the kernel's is identical in other processes, too. So it doesnt matter which process you are in, when you "call kernel", (i.e. a system call), you end up in the top 1GB, which is shared in between all processes.
Again, the key point is that the 1GB isn't REALLY used in full. The actual memory footprint of the kernel is a lot smaller - in the tens of MB. It's jsut that theoretically, the kernel can use UP to 1GB, but that is assuming it can be backed up either by RAM or (rarely) swap. You can look at /proc/meminfo. As for the answer above, about changing 3/1 - it actually CAN be changed (in Windows it's as easy as a kernel command line option in boot.ini, in Linux it requires recompilation).
The 3GB/1GB split in process space is fixed. There is no way to change it regardless of how much RAM is actually in use.
As process has virtual memory which is copied into RAM during run time. As given in the previous post.
Which part of process virtual memory layout does mmap() uses?
I have following doubles :
If memory mapping is inside unallocated memory and it is inside process's virtual memory. As virtual memory helps to avoid one process to touch other process's virtual memory. Then how can memory mapping is used for Interprocess Communication(IPC)?
In OS like Linux, whether has each individual process separate section of heap, stack and memory mapping or all processes have one common section for heap, stack and MMAP?
Example :
if there are P1,P2 and P3 processes are running on linux OS. will all have common table as given in picture or each individual task have separate table to each section.
In 32 bit system, 2^32=4 gigabytes of virtual memory is possible and 1G byte is reserved for kernel and 3 gigabytes for userspace applications. can each individual process have up to 3 gigabytes of virtual memory or sum of all userspace applications size could be 3 gigabytes (i.e virtual memory size of (P1+P2+P3)<=3 gigabytes)?
--
Learner
Using memory mapping for IPC works by mapping the same range of physical memory into two or more virtual address ranges in different processes. This works for communication because both processes are using the exact same memory cells (although they might "see" them differently, at different addresses). You change a value in one mapping, and it is instantly visible in the other mapping in a different process because it is the very same memory.
Every process has its own independent stack and heap. The OS does not care about that at all, it only cares about pages. The heap and the stack are things that are implemented by the application (via the runtime). When you call a function like malloc, the allocator in the runtime either returns a block that it already had reserved earlier or one that it has recylced (you called free earlier), or it asks the OS to reserve some more memory (sbrk or mmap). When you first access this memory, the OS sees a page fault and verifies that you are allowed to access this location (because you've reserved it) and then provides a valid page.
Every process can use (as in "reserve") the whole available address space (3GiB in your example). This does not interfere with any other process. Note that due to fragmentation and alignment, and because your executable and the stack take away a little bit, you will in practice not be able to allocate the full 3 GiB, but you can get close to it.
All processes together can use as much virtual memory as is available on the system (physical RAM plus swap space), but they can only use as much as there is physical memory available at the same time (minus a little bit for this and that, like unpageable kernel memory and such).
If I have a process, which has been allocated with some space in RAM. If the process creates a thread (it has too, in fact), the thread will also need some space for its execution. Won't it?
So will it increase the size of the space which has been allocated to that process, or space for thread will be created somewhere else? IF Yes, where on RAM, need it to be contigious with the space that has been possessed by the process?
There'll be some overhead in the scheduler (in the kernel) somewhere since it needs to maintain information about the thread.
There'll also be some overhead in the process-specific area as well since you'll need a stack for each thread and you don't want to go putting stuff into the kernel-specific space when the user code needs to get at.
All modern operating systems and for quite some time now, separate between the memory needed by a process and the memory physically allocated on the RAM.
The OS created a large virtual address space for each process. That address space is independent of how many threads are created inside each process.
In Windows for example, and for optimization reasons, part of that address space is reserved for OS and kernel libraries and is shared amongst all processes for efficiency.
The other part is dedicated to the application user code and libraries.
Once a process logistics and resources are created, the process now is ready to start and that will happen through starting the first thread in the process that will start executing the process main entry point.
For a thread to start execute, it needs a stack amongst other requirements. In Windows, the default size of that stack is about 1 MB. It means, if not changed, each thread will require about 1 MB of memory for its own housekeeping. (stack, TLS, etc....)
When the process needs memory to be allocated, the OS decides the how this memory is going to be allocated physically on the RAM. The process/ application does not see in physical RAM addresses. It only sees virtual addresses from the virtual space assigned to each process.
The OS uses a page file located on the disk to assist with memory requests in addition to the RAM. Less RAM means more pressure on the Page file. When the OS tries to find a piece of memory that's not in the RAM, it will try to find in the page file, and in this case they call it a page miss.
This topic is very extensive but tried to give an overview as much as I can.