Is there a way to allocate contiguous physical memory from userspace in linux? At least few guaranteed contiguous memory pages. One huge page isn't the answer.
No. There is not. You do need to do this from Kernel space.
If you say "we need to do this from User Space" - without anything going on in kernel-space it makes little sense - because a user space program has no way of controlling or even knowing if the underlying memory is contiguous or not.
The only reason where you would need to do this - is if you were working in-conjunction with a piece of hardware, or some other low-level (i.e. Kernel) service that needed this requirement. So again, you would have to deal with it at that level.
So the answer isn't just "you can't" - but "you should never need to".
I have written such memory managers that do allow me to do this - but it was always because of some underlying issue at the kernel level, which had to be addressed at the kernel level. Generally because some other agent on the bus (PCI card, BIOS or even another computer over RDMA interface) had the physical contiguous memory requirement. Again, all of this had to be addressed in kernel space.
When you talk about "cache lines" - you don't need to worry. You can be assured that each page of your user-space memory is contiguous, and each page is much larger than a cache-line (no matter what architecture you're talking about).
Yes, if all you need is a few pages, this may indeed be possible.
The file /proc/[pid]/pagemap now allows programs to inspect the mapping of their virtual memory to physical memory.
While you cannot explicitly modify the mapping, you can just allocate a virtual page, lock it into memory via a call to mlock, record its physical address via a lookup into /proc/self/pagemap, and repeat until you just happen to get enough blocks touching eachother to create a large enough contiguous block. Then unlock and free your excess blocks.
It's hackish, clunky and potentially slow, but it's worth a try. On the other hand, there's a decently large chance that this isn't actually what you really need.
DPDK library's memory allocator uses approach #Wallacoloo described. eal_memory.c. The code is BSD licensed.
if specific device driver exports dma buffer which is physical contiguous, user space can access through dma buf apis
so user task can access but not allocate directly
that is because physically contiguous constraints are not from user aplications but only from device
so only device drivers should care.
Related
Is there a way to allocate contiguous physical memory from userspace in linux? At least few guaranteed contiguous memory pages. One huge page isn't the answer.
No. There is not. You do need to do this from Kernel space.
If you say "we need to do this from User Space" - without anything going on in kernel-space it makes little sense - because a user space program has no way of controlling or even knowing if the underlying memory is contiguous or not.
The only reason where you would need to do this - is if you were working in-conjunction with a piece of hardware, or some other low-level (i.e. Kernel) service that needed this requirement. So again, you would have to deal with it at that level.
So the answer isn't just "you can't" - but "you should never need to".
I have written such memory managers that do allow me to do this - but it was always because of some underlying issue at the kernel level, which had to be addressed at the kernel level. Generally because some other agent on the bus (PCI card, BIOS or even another computer over RDMA interface) had the physical contiguous memory requirement. Again, all of this had to be addressed in kernel space.
When you talk about "cache lines" - you don't need to worry. You can be assured that each page of your user-space memory is contiguous, and each page is much larger than a cache-line (no matter what architecture you're talking about).
Yes, if all you need is a few pages, this may indeed be possible.
The file /proc/[pid]/pagemap now allows programs to inspect the mapping of their virtual memory to physical memory.
While you cannot explicitly modify the mapping, you can just allocate a virtual page, lock it into memory via a call to mlock, record its physical address via a lookup into /proc/self/pagemap, and repeat until you just happen to get enough blocks touching eachother to create a large enough contiguous block. Then unlock and free your excess blocks.
It's hackish, clunky and potentially slow, but it's worth a try. On the other hand, there's a decently large chance that this isn't actually what you really need.
DPDK library's memory allocator uses approach #Wallacoloo described. eal_memory.c. The code is BSD licensed.
if specific device driver exports dma buffer which is physical contiguous, user space can access through dma buf apis
so user task can access but not allocate directly
that is because physically contiguous constraints are not from user aplications but only from device
so only device drivers should care.
For my M.Sc. thesis, I have to reverse-engineer the hash function Intel uses inside its CPUs to spread data among Last Level Cache slices in Sandy Bridge and newer generations. To this aim, I am developing an application in Linux, which needs a physically contiguous memory area in order to make my tests. The idea is to read data from this area, so that they are cached, probe if older data have been evicted (through delay measures or LLC miss counters) in order to find colliding memory addresses and finally discover the hash function by comparing these colliding addresses.
The same procedure has already been used in Windows by a researcher, and proved to work.
To do this, I need to allocate an area that must be large (64 MB or more) and fully cachable, so without DMA-friendly options in TLB. How can I perform this allocation?
To have a full control over the allocation (i.e., for it to be really physically contiguous), my idea was to write a Linux module, export a device and mmap() it from userspace, but I do not know how to allocate so much contiguous memory inside the kernel.
I heard about Linux Contiguous Memory Allocator (CMA), but I don't know how it works
Applications don't see physical memory, a process have some address space in virtual memory. Read about the MMU (what is contiguous in virtual space might not really be physically contiguous and vice versa)
You might perhaps want to lock some memory using mlock(2)
But your application will be scheduled, and other processes (or scheduled tasks) would dirty your CPU cache. See also sched_setaffinity(2)
(and even kernel code might be perhaps preempted)
This page on Kernel Newbies, has some ideas about memory allocation. But the max for get_free_pages looks like 8MiB. (Perhaps that's a compile-time constraint?)
Since this would be all-custom, you could explore the mem= boot parameter of the linux kernel. This will limit the amount of memory used, and you can party all over the remaining memory without anyone knowing. Heck, if you boot up a busybox system, you could probably do mem=32M, but even mem=256M should work if you're not booting a GUI.
You will also want to look into the Offline Scheduler (and here). It "unplugs" the CPU from Linux so you can have full control over ALL code running on it. (Some parts of this are already in the mainline kernel, and maybe all of it is.)
What is the difference between "zero-copy networking" and "kernel bypass"? Are they two phrases meaning the same thing, or different? Is kernel bypass a technique used within "zero copy networking" and this is the relationship?
What is the difference between "zero-copy networking" and "kernel bypass"? Are they two phrases meaning the same thing, or different? Is kernel bypass a technique used within "zero copy networking" and this is the relationship?
TL;DR - They are different concepts, but it is quite likely that zero copy is supported within kernel bypass API/framework.
User Bypass
This mode of communicating should also be considered. It maybe possible for DMA-to-DMA transactions which do not involve the CPU at all. The idea is to use splice() or similar functions to avoid user space at all. Note, that with splice(), the entire data stream does not need to bypass user space. Headers can be read in user space and data streamed directly to disk. The most common downfall of this is splice() doesn't do checksum offloading.
Zero copy
The zero copy concept is only that the network buffers are fixed in place and are not moved around. In many cases, this is not really beneficial. Most modern network hardware supports scatter gather, also know as buffer descriptors, etc. The idea is the network hardware understands physical pointers. The buffer descriptor typically consists of,
Data pointer
Length
Next buffer descriptor
The benefit is that the network headers do not need to exist side-by-side and IP, TCP, and Application headers can reside physically seperate from the application data.
If a controller doesn't support this, then the TCP/IP headers must precede the user data so that they can be filled in before sending to the network controller.
zero copy also implies some kernel-user MMU setup so that pages are shared.
Kernel Bypass
Of course, you can bypass the kernel. This is what pcap and other sniffer software has been doing for some time. However, pcap does not prevent the normal kernel processing; but the concept is similar to what a kernel bypass framework would allow. Ie, directly deliver packets to user space where processing headers would happen.
However, it is difficult to see a case where user space will have a definite win unless it is tied to the particular hardware. Some network controllers may have scatter gather supported in the controller and others may not.
There are various incarnation of kernel interfaces to accomplish kernel by-pass. A difficulty is what happens with the received data and producing the data for transmission. Often this involve other devices and so there are many solutions.
To put this together...
Are they two phrases meaning the same thing, or different?
They are different as above hopefully explains.
Is kernel bypass a technique used within "zero copy networking" and this is the relationship?
It is the opposite. Kernel bypass can use zero copy and most likely will support it as the buffers are completely under control of the application. Also, there is no memory sharing between the kernel and user space (meaning no need for MMU shared pages and whatever cache/TLB effects that may cause). So if you are using kernel bypass, it will often be advantageous to support zero copy; so the things may seem the same at first.
If scatter-gather DMA is available (most modern controllers) either user space or the kernel can use it. zero copy is not as useful in this case.
Reference:
Technical reference on OnLoad, a high band width kernel by-pass system.
PF Ring as of 2.6.32, if configured
Linux kernel network buffer management by David Miller. This gives an idea of how the protocols headers/trailers are managed in the kernel.
Zero-copy networking
You're doing zero-copy networking when you never copy the data between the user-space and the kernel-space (I mean memory space). By example:
C language
recv(fd, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE, 0);
By default the data are copied:
The kernel gets the data from the network stack
The kernel copies this data to the buffer, which is in the user-space.
With zero-copy method, the data are not copied and come to the user-space directly from the network stack.
Kernel Bypass
The kernel bypass is when you manage yourself, in the user-space, the network stack and hardware stuff. It is hard, but you will gain a lot of performance (there is zero copy, since all the data are in the user-space). This link could be interesting if you want more information.
ZERO-COPY:
When transmitting and receiving packets,
all packet data must be copied from user-space buffers to kernel-space buffers for transmitting and vice versa for receiving. A zero-copy driver avoids this by having user space and the driver share packet buffer memory directly.
Instead of having the transmit and receive point to buffers in kernel space which will later require to copy, a region of memory in user space is allocated, and mapped to a given region of physical memory, to be shared memory between the kernel buffers and the user-space buffers, then point each descriptor buffer to its corresponding place in the newly allocated memory.
Other examples of kernel bypass and zero copy are DPDK and RDMA. When an application uses DPDK it is bypassing the kernel TCP/IP stack. The application is creating the Ethernet frames and the NIC grabbing those frames with DMA directly from user space memory so it's zero copy because there is no copy from user space to kernel space. Applications can do similar things with RDMA. The application writes to queue pairs that the NIC directly access and transmits. RDMA iblibverbs is used inside the kernel as well so when iSER is using RDMA it's not Kernel bypass but it is zero copy.
http://dpdk.org/
https://www.openfabrics.org/index.php/openfabrics-software.html
I am looking to write a PWM driver. I know that there are two ways we can control a hardware driver:
User space driver.
Kernel space driver
If in general (do not consider a PWM driver case) we have to make a decision whether to go for user space or kernel space driver. Then what factors we have to take into consideration apart from these?
User space driver can directly mmap() /dev/mem memory to their virtual address space and need no context switching.
Userspace driver cannot have interrupt handlers implemented (They have to poll for interrupt).
Userspace driver cannot perform DMA (As DMA capable memory can be allocated from kernel space).
From those three factors that you have listed only the first one is actually correct. As for the rest — not really. It is possible for a user space code to perform DMA operations — no problem with that. There are many hardware appliance companies who employ this technique in their products. It is also possible to have an interrupt driven user-space application, even when all of the I/O is done with a full kernel-bypass. Of course, it is not as easy simply doing an mmap() on /dev/mem.
You would have to have a minimal portion of your driver in the kernel — that is needed in order to provide your user space with a bare minimum that it needs from the kernel (because if you think about it — /dev/mem is also backed up by a character device driver).
For DMA, it is actually too darn easy — all you have to do is to handle mmap request and map a DMA buffer into the user space. For interrupts — it is a little bit more tricky, the interrupt must be handled by the kernel no matter what, however, the kernel may not do any work and just wake up the process that calls, say, epoll_wait(). Another approach is to deliver a signal to the process as done by DOSEMU, but that is very slow and is not recommended.
As for your actual question, one factor that you should take into consideration is resource sharing. As long as you don't have to share a device across multiple applications and there is nothing that you cannot do in user space — go for the user space. You will probably save tons of time during the development cycle as writing user space code is extremely easy. When, however, two or more applications need to share the device (or its resources) then chances are that you will spend tremendous amount of time making it possible — just imagine multiple processes forking, crashing, mapping (the same?) memory concurrently etc. And after all, IPC is generally done through the kernel, so if application would need to start "talking" to each other, the performance might degrade greatly. This is still done in real-life for certain performance-critical applications, though, but I don't want to go into those details.
Another factor is the kernel infrastructure. Let's say you want to write a network device driver. That's not a problem to do it in user space. However, if you do that then you'd need to write a full network stack too as it won't be possible to user Linux's default one that lives in the kernel.
I'd say go for user space if it is possible and the amount of effort to make things work is less than writing a kernel driver, and keeping in mind that one day it might be necessary to move code into the kernel. In fact, this is a common practice to have the same code being compiled for both user space and kernel space depending on whether some macro is defined or not, because testing in user space is a lot more pleasant.
Another consideration: it is far easier to debug user-space drivers. You can use gdb, valgrind, etc. Heck, you don't even have to write your driver in C.
There's a third option beyond just user space or kernel space drivers: some of both. You can do just the kernel-space-only stuff in a kernel driver and do everything else in user space. You might not even have to write the kernel space driver if you use the Linux UIO driver framework (see https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/uio-howto.html).
I've had luck writing a DMA-capable driver almost completely in user space. UIO provides the infrastructure so you can just read/select/epoll on a file to wait on an interrupt.
You should be cognizant of the security implications of programming the DMA descriptors from user space: unless you have some protection in the device itself or an IOMMU, the user space driver can cause the device to read from or write to any address in physical memory.
Virtual memory is split two parts. In tradition, 0~3GB is for user space and 3GB~4GB for kernel space.
My question:
Could the thread in user space access memory of kernel space?
For ARM datasheet, the access attribution is in the charge of domain access control register. But in kernel source code,the domain value in page table entry of user space virtual memory is same as kernel space's page table entry.
In fact, your application might access page 0xFFFF0000, as it contains the swi-handler and a couple of other userspace-helpers. So no, the 3/1 split is nothing magical, it's just very easy for the kernel to manage.
Usually the kernel will setup all memory above 3GB to be only accessible by the kernel-domain itself. If a driver needs to share memory between user and kernel-space it will usually provide an mmap interface, which then creates an aliased mapping, so you have two virtual addresses for the same physical address. This only works reliably on VIPT-Cache systems or with a LOT of careful explicit cache flushing. If you don't want this you CAN hack the kernel to make a chunk of memory ABOVE the 3G-split accessible to userspace. But then all userspace applications will share this memory. I've done this once for a special application on a armv5-system.
Userspace code getting Kernel memory? The only kernel that ever allowed that was DOS and its archaic friends.
But back to the question, look at this example C code:
char c=42;
*c=42;
We take one byte (a char) and assign it the numeric value 42. We then dereference this non-pointer, which will probably try to access the 42nd byte of virtual memory, which is almost definitely not your memory, and, for the sake of this example, Kernel memory. guess what happens when you run this (if you manage to hold the compiler at gunpoint):
Segmentation fault
Linux has memory protection like any modern operating system. If you try to access the memory of another process, your process will be terminated before it can do anything (other things I'm not so sure about happen with debuggers though). Even if that memory was that of another Userland process, you would still get terminated. I'm almost sure that root programs can't access other programs memory, or Kernel memory. The only way to access Kernel memory is to be part of the Kernel, or indirectly through the kernel's cooperation.