I am trying to measure the performance of some library calls. My primary measurement tool is the rdtsc call. After doing some reading I realize that I need to disable preemption and interrupts in order to get the most accurate readings. Can someone help me figure out how to do these? I know that pthreads have a 'set affinity' mechanism. Is that enough to get the job done?
I also read somewhere that I can make calls into the kernel of the sort
preempt_disable()
raw_local_irq_save(...)
Is there any benefit to using one approach over the other? I tried the latter approach and got this error.
error: 'preempt_disable' was not declared in this scope
which can be fixed by including linux/preempt.h but the compiler still complains.
linux/preempt.h: No such file or directory
Obviously I have not done any kernel hacking and I could not find this file on my system anywhere. I am really hoping I wont have to install a new linux kernel. :)
Thanks for your input.
Pinning a pthread to a single CPU can be done using pthread_setaffinity_np
But what you want to achieve at the end is not so simple. I'll explain you why.
preempt.h is part of the Linux Kernel source. Its located here. You need to have kernel sources with you. Anyways, you need to write a kernel module to access it, you cannot use it from user space. Learn how to write a kernel module here. Same is the case with functions preempt_disable and other interrupt disabling kernel functions
Now the point is, pthreads are in user space and your preemption disabling function is in kernel space. How to interact?
Either you need to write a new system call of your own where you do your preemption and interrupt disabling and call it from user space. Or you need to resort to other Kernel-User Space Interfaces like procfs, sysfs, ioctl etc
But I am really skeptical as to how all these will help you to benchmark library functions. You may want to have a look at how performance is typically measured using rdtsc
Related
I've tried to understand the behavior of the function clock_gettime by looking at the source code of the linux kernel.
I'm currently using a 4.4.0-83-lowlatency but I only could get the 4.4.76 source files (but it should be close enough).
My first issue is that there is several occurrence of the function. I chose pc_clock_gettime which appears to be the closest and the only one handling CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW but if I'm wrong, please correct me.
I tracked back the execution flow of the function and came to a mysterious ravb_ptp_gettime64 and ravb_ptp_time_read which is related to the Ethernet driver.
So... If I understand correctly when I ask the system to give me the time, it ask to the Ethernet driver ?
This is the first time I looked into kernel code so I'm not used to it. If someone could give me an explanation of "how" and "why", it would be marvelous.
clock_gettime use a mechanism named vDSO (Virutal Dynamic Shared Object). It's a shared library which is mapped in the user space by the kernel.
vDSO allow the use of syscall frequently without a drawback on performances. So the kernel "puts" time informations into memory which user programm can access. In the end, it won't be a system call but only a simple function call.
I am trying to edit the linux kernel. I want some information to be written out to a file as a part of the debugging process. I have read about the printk function. But i would like to add text to a particular file (file other from the default files that keep debug logs).
To cut it short: I would kind of like to specify the "destination" in the printk function (or at least some work-around it)
How can I achieve this? Will using fwrite/fopen work (if yes, will it work without causing much overhead compared to printk, since they are implemented differently)?
What other options do i have?
Using fopen and fwrite will certainly not work. Working with files in kernel space is generally a bad idea.
It all really depends on what you are doing in the kernel though. In some configurations, there may not even be a hard disk for you to write to. If however, you are working at a stage where you can have certain assumptions about the running kernel, you probably actually want to write a kernel module rather than edit the kernel itself. For all you care, a kernel module is just as good as any other part of the kernel, but they are inserted when the kernel is already up and running.
You may also be thinking of doing so for debugging, or have output of a kernel-level application (e.g. an application that you are forced to run at kernel level for real-time constraints etc). In that case, kio may be of interest to you, but if you want to use it, do make sure you understand why.
kio is a library I wrote just for those "kernel-level applications", which makes a kernel module see a /proc file as if it's a user of it (rather than a provider). To make it work, you should have a user-space application also opening that virtual file and redirect it to wherever you want to write your log. Something along the lines of opening the file with kopen in write mode and in user space tell cat /proc/your_file > ~/log_file.
Note: I still recommend printk unless you really know what you are doing. Since you are thinking of fopen in kernel space, I don't think you really know what you are doing.
I want to write a system call interposition by using Utrace. I understood that Utrace project has been abandoned, but part of its code is used on kprobe and uprobe.
I haven't understood really well how these work. Especially uprobe Can you explain what difference exists between them? And can I use uprobe without writing a module to check which are the actual parameters for a system call?
thanks
Kprobe creates and manages probepoints in kernel code, that is, you want to probe some kernel function, say, do_sys_open(). You need to take a look at Documentation/trace/kprobetrace.txt to get some usage of kprobe.
Uprobe creates and manages probepoints in user applications, that is, you want to probe some user-space function, but the probe is run in the kernel space on behalf of the probed process. You need to take a look at Documentation/trace/uprobetracer.txt to get the basic usage of uprobe, to see what it aims for.
I need some directions to start learning about programming my own operating system kernel.
Just for educational purpouses.
How can I write my own Kernel?
I would first ask: why did you pick "writing a kernel?" Any answer other than "the idea of implementing my own task structures in memory to be swapped by a scheduler that I write and using memory that is managed by code that I wrote and is protected by abstractions of machine-level atomic instructions and is given I/O access through abstractions that sit atop actual hardware interfaces appeals to me" is probably a bad answer that indicates you haven't done any research whatsoever and are wasting your time.
If you answered similarly to the above, then you have a good starting point and you know what you need to research (that is, you are able to pinpoint to some degree what information you do not know but need to find out).
Either way, I don't think this question is worth asking. In one case, you have done no research of your own to discover if you can actually do this, and in the other case you asked an overly-broad question.
It isn't that hard, but you need to learn about proper resource management and low-level device I/O. If you're targeting a commodity x86 box, then you'll need to learn about how the BIOS works and how the disk is structured. For example, the BIOS will read the first block of the disk into memory at some fixed address and then jump to that address. Since there probably won't be enough space in one block to store your kernel, you'll need to write a boot loader to read your kernel off the disk and load it.
Writing a minimal kernel that does some simple multitasking and performs I/O using just the BIOS isn't too difficult, just don't expect to be throwing up any windows and mousing around any time soon. You'll be busy trying to implement a simple file system and getting read() and write() to work.
Maybe you can start by looking into OS/161, which is a Harvard's simplified operating system for educational purposes. The OS runs on a simulator, so you don't need a new machine to run it. I used it for my operating system course, and it really did help a lot.
Also I think you may really want to consider taking an operating system course if you haven't done so.
I would like to dynamically allocate memory from the machine_init function in my arm linux kernel. However, my tests indicate that calling kalloc sometimes results in a complete failure of the system to boot.
My debugging tools are very limited so I can't give much more information regarding the failure.
Simply put, is it legal to call kalloc from a machine_init function in ARM linux, and, if not, is there an alternative?
I understand that in most cases it is wrong-headed to be allocating memory this early in the boot process (this kind of work should be done by the device drivers); however, I am convinced that my particular project requires it.
I can't see where machine_init is called from, but I can't help thinking you're trying to do the wrong thing.
Device drivers and other subsystems have their own init time, trying to do things very early on is usually a mistake (because something required isn't started yet). You can definitely call kmalloc during the initialisation of a device driver (at least, most. Maybe the console driver is different).
In any case, the fact that your on ARM suggests that it's an embedded system, so you're unlikely to have to deal with a lot of different hardware. Can't you just statically allocate an array with as many elements as could possibly be required (give an error if it is exceeded) ?
Kmalloc is a kernel API on top slab/slob/slub memory frame work. Once any of these framework(one which used by kernel) is initialized kmalloc works fine. Make sure your call after the slab/slob/slub initialization
cheers