I am wondering if Intel's processor provides instructions in their instruction set
to turn on and off the multithreading or hyperthreading capability? Basically, I wanna
know if an Operating System can control these feature via instructions somehow?
Thank you so much
Mareike
Most operating systems have a facility for changing a process' CPU affinity, thereby restricting it to a single physical or virtual core. But multithreading is a program architecture, not a CPU facility.
I think that what you are trying to ask is, "Is there a way to prevent the OS from utilizing hyperthreading and/or multiple cores?"
The answer is, definitely. This isn't governed by a single instruction, and indeed it's not like you can just write a device driver that would automagically disable all of that hardware. Most of this depends on how the kernel configures the interrupt controllers at boot time.
When a machine is first started, there is a designated processor that is used for bootstrapping. It is the responsibility of the OS to configure the multiprocessor hardware accordingly. On PC platforms this would involve reading information about the multiprocessor configuration from in-memory tables provided by the boot firmware. This data would likely conform to either the ACPI or the Intel multiprocessor specifications. The kernel then uses that date to configure the APIC hardware accordingly.
Multithreading and multitasking are not special instructions or modes in the CPU. They're just fancy ways people who write operating systems use interrupts. There is a hardware timer, basically a counter being incremented by a clocking signal, that triggers an interrupt when it overflows. The exact interrupt is platform specific. In the olden days this timer is actually a separate chip/circuit on the motherboard that is simply attached to one of the CPU's interrupt pin. Modern CPUs have this timer built in. So, to turn off multithreading and multitasking the OS can simply disable the interrupt signal.
Alternatively, since it's the OS's job to actually schedule processes/threads, the OS can simply decide to ignore all threads and not run them.
Hyperthreading is a different thing. It sort of allows the OS to see a second virtual CPU that it can execute code on. Never had to deal with the thing directly so I'm not sure how to turn it off (or even if it is possible).
There is no x86 instruction that disables HyperThreading or additional cores. But, there is BIOS settings that can turn off these features. Because it can be set in BIOS, it requires rebooting, and generally it's beyond OS control. There is Windows booting option that limits the number of active core, but HyperThreading can be turn on/off only by BIOS. Current Intel's HyperThreading implementation doesn't allow dynamic turn on and off (and it won't be easily implemented in a near time).
I have assumed 'multithreading' in your question as 'hardware multithreading' which is technically identical to HyperThreading. However, if you really intended software-level multithreading (i.e., multitasking), then it's totally different question. It is (almost) impossible for modern operating systems since they are by default supports multitasking. And, this question actually doesn't make sense. It can make sense if you want to run MS-DOS (as real mode of x86, where a single task can be done).
p.s. Please note that 'multithreading' can be either hardware or software. Also I agree all others' answers such as processor/thread affinity.
Related
I'm writing an application that needs to be executed on a specific core of a processor.
For Example:
If we have 4 cores and i want to execute code on 2nd core only. I need help how to do this.
I'm writing an application that needs to be executed on a specific core of a processor.
This is extremely improbable on most platforms (since most multi-core processors are homogeneous). You really need to explain, motivate and justify such an usual requirement.
You can't do that in general. And if you could do that, how exactly you should proceed is operating system specific, and platform specific. Most multi-core processors are homogeneous (all the cores are the same), some are not.
On Linux/x86-64, the kernel scheduler sees all cores as the same, and will move a task (e.g. a thread of a multi-threaded process) from one core to another at arbitrary moments. Since scheduling is preemptive.
On some processors, moving periodically (e.g dozen of times per second) a task from one core to another is actually recommended (and done automagically by the kernel, or the firmware - e.g. SMM) to avoid overheating of that core. Read about dark silicon.
Some unusual hardware (e.g. ARM big.LITTLE) have two sets of different cores (e.g. 2 high-end ARM cores with 2 low-end ones, all sharing the same memory). If your platform is such, please state that in your question, and ask how to achieve processor affinity on your specific platform. Very likely your OS has appropriate system calls for that purpose.
Some high-end motherboards are multi-sockets. In such case, a RAM module is closer to one socket (in timing) than to another. You then care about non-uniform memory access.
So read more about processor affinity and non-uniform memory access. Most OSes have some support for both. On Linux, see pthread_setaffinity_np(3), sched_setaffinity(2), numa(7) etc...
To learn more about OSes, read Operating Systems: Three Easy pieces.
Notice that by pinning some thread to a some fixed core, you might lower the performance of your program. Since processor affinity is rarely useful.
The programmer can prescribe his/her own affinities (hard affinities) but
Rule of thumb: use the default scheduler unless a good reason not to.
here is a C/C++ function to assign a thread to a certain core
Kernel scheduler API
#include <sched.h>
int sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, unsigned int len, unsigned long * mask);
sets the current affinity mask of process 'pid' to *mask
'len' is the system word size: sizeof(unsigned int long)
To query affinity of a running process:
[~]$ taskset -p 3935
pid 3945's current affinity mask: f
It is known the way to disable logical CPUs in Linux, basically with echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<number>/online. This way, you are only telling to the OS to ignore that given (<number>) CPU.
My question goes further, is it possible not only to ignore it but to turn it off physically programmatically? I want that CPU to not receive any power, in order to make its energy consumption zero.
I know that it is possible disable cores from the BIOS (not always), but I want to know whether is possible to do it within a certain program or not.
When you do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<number>/online, what happens next depends on the particular CPU. On ARM embedded systems the kernel will typically disable the clock that drives the particular core PLL so effectively you get what you want.
On Intel X86 systems, you can only disable the interrupts and call the hlt instruction (which Linux Kernel does). This effectively puts CPU to the power-saving state until it is woken up by another CPU at user request. If you have a laptop, you can verify that power draw indeed goes down when you disable the core by reading the power from /sys/class/power_supply/BAT{0,1}/current_now (or uevent for all values such as voltage) or using the "powertop" utility.
For example, here's the call chain for disabling the CPU core in Linux Kernel for Intel CPUs.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
arch/x86/kernel/smp.c: smp_ops.play_dead = native_play_dead,
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c : native_play_dead() -> play_dead_common() -> local_irq_disable()
Before that, CPUFREQ also sets the CPU to the lowest power consumption level before disabling it though this does not seem to be strictly necessary.
intel_pstate_stop_cpu -> intel_cpufreq_stop_cpu -> intel_pstate_set_min_pstate -> intel_pstate_set_pstate -> wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpu->cpu, MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL, pstate_funcs.get_val(cpu, pstate));
On Intel X86 there does not seem to be an official way to disable the actual clocks and voltage regulators. Even if there was, it would be specific to the motherboard and thus your closest bet might be looking into BIOS such as coreboot.
Hmm, I realized I have no idea about Intel except looking into kernel sources.
In Windows 10 it became possible with new power management commands CPMINCORES CPMAXCORES.
Powercfg -setacvalueindex scheme_current sub_processor CPMAXCORES 50
Powercfg -setacvalueindex scheme_current sub_processor CPMINCORES 25
Powercfg -setactive scheme_current
Here 50% of cores are assigned for desired deep sleep, and 25% are forbidden to be parked. Very good in numeric simulations requiring increased clock rate (15% boost on Intel)
You can not choose which cores to park, but Windows 10 kernel checks Intel's Comet Lake and newer "prefered" (more power efficient) cores, and starts parking those not preferred.
It is not a strict parking, so at high load the kernel can use these cores with very low load.
just in case if you are looking for alternatives
You can get closest to this by using governors like cpufreq. Make Linux exclude the CPU and power saving mode will ensure that the core runs at minimal frequency.
You can also isolate cpus from the scheduler at kernel boot time.
Add isolcpus=0,1,2 to the kernel boot parameters.
https://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/linux_kernel/kernel_configuration/re46.html
I know this is an old question but one way to disable the CPU is via grub config.
If you add to end of GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX in /etc/default/grub (assuming you are using a standard Linux dist, if you are using an appliance the location of the grub config may be different), e.g.:
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX=".......Current config here **maxcpus**=2"
Then remake you grub config by running
grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg (or grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg depending on your installation). Some distros may require nr_cpus instead of maxcpus.
Just some extra info:
If you are running a server with Multiple physical CPU then disabling one CPU may will most likely disable the memory set that is linked to that CPU, therefore it may have an effect on the performance of the server
Disabling the CPU this way, will not effect your type 1 hypervisor from accessing the CPU (this is based on xen hypervisor, I believe it will apply to vmware as well, if anyone can provide confirmation would be great). Depending on virtualbox setup, it may restrict the amount of CPU you can allocate to VM's unless you are running para-virtualization.
I am unsure however if you will have any power savings, most servers and even desktops these days, already control the power well, putting to sleep any device not needed for the current load. My concern would be by reducing the number of CPU (cores) then you will just be moving the load to the remaining CPU and due to the need to schedule the processors time, and potentially having instructions queued, and the effect of having a smaller number of cores available for interrupts (eg: network traffic), it may have a negative effect on power consumption.
AFAIK there is no system call or library function available as of now. or even ioctl implementation. So apart from creating new module / system call there are two ways I can think of :
using ASM asm(<assembly code>); where assembly code being architecture specific asm code to modify cpu flag.
system call in c (man 3 system). Assuming you just want to do it through c.
I would like to know why the BIOS is single-threaded even we have 4 cores/8 cores. Latest UEFI technology allows GUI utilities. Is there any specific reason for not implementing Multi-threaded BIOS.
The simple answer is: Diminishing Returns
On most PCs, the boot sequence of BIOS/UEFI only takes ~5 seconds to work (Not counting HDD spinup latency). To most people, that is fast enough. (If you want faster, put your PC to sleep instead of turning it off.)
Keep in mind that many of the tasks done in the BIOS cannot be parallelized. The memory controller has to be initialized first. The PCI/PCIe busses must be enumerated before you can check any of the subsequent devices (USB, SATA, Video, etc). You can't boot until you disks have spun up.
There are a few initialization items that are time-consuming, and could be done in parallel.
IDE/SATA - Usually takes a while due to mechanical disk latencies.
USB - Some USB devices need 100s of msec after power is applied to come to life.
Video (any any other third-party BIOS extensions) - It takes a while to communicate with the displays and sync up.
Those tasks could be done in parallel, which might speed up your PC's boot time. Keep in mind that to get there, you need to write a kernel and task scheduler. In legacy BIOS (pure x86 assembler), this would not be pretty. In UEFI (which is mostly C source), this is a little more feasible. However, it still requires a non-trivial engineering effort for a minor gain (maybe 1-2 second of boot time.)
Phoenix has tried to introduce a multi-threaded BIOS initialization before. As far as I know, it never took off.
Because there is no need. The BIOS does not do heavy computations. It does some coordination and then exits (forever).
UEFI does not describe any multiprocessing functionality. However, the PI specification (also produced by the UEFI Forum) does, and EDK2 provides the EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL (currently for IA32/X64 only).
It is not exactly pthreads, but it does let you schedule tasks to run on Application Processors while the Bootstrap Processor keeps providing the single-threaded UEFI instance.
The interface for DXE phase is described in Volume 3 of the v1.5 PI specification, section MP Services Protocol (13.4).
Functionality available during PEI are described by Volume 2, EFI MP Services PPI (8.3.9).
I read the following statement:
The x86 architecture includes a
specific segment type called the Task
State Segment (TSS), to store hardware
contexts. Although Linux doesn't use
hardware context switches, it is
nonetheless forced to set up a TSS for
each distinct CPU in the system.
I am wondering:
Why doesn't Linux use the hardware support for context switch?
Isn't the hardware approach much faster than the software approach?
Is there any OS which does take advantage of the hardware context switch? Does windows use it?
At last and as always, thanks for your patience and reply.
-----------Added--------------
http://wiki.osdev.org/Context_Switching got some explanation.
People as confused as me could take a look at it. 8^)
The x86 TSS is very slow for hardware multitasking and offers almost no benefits when compared to software task switching. (In fact, I think doing it manually beats the TSS a lot of times)
The TSS is known also for being annoying and tedious to work with and it is not portable, even to x86-64. Linux aims at working on multiple architectures so they probably opted to use software task switching because it can be written in a machine independent way. Also, Software task switching provides a lot more power over what can be done and is generally easier to setup than the TSS is.
I believe Windows 3.1 used the TSS, but at least the NT >5 kernel does not. I do not know of any Unix-like OS that uses the TSS.
Do note that the TSS is mandatory. The thing that OSs do though is create a single TSS entry(per processor) and everytime they need to switch tasks, they just change out this single TSS. And also the only fields used in the TSS by software task switching is ESP0 and SS0. This is used to get to ring 0 from ring 3 code for interrupts. Without a TSS, there would be no known Ring 0 stack which would of course lead to a GPF and eventually triple fault.
Linux used to use HW-based switching, in the pre-1.3 timeframe iirc. I believe sw-based context switching turned out to be faster, and it is more flexible.
Another reason may have been minimizing arch-specific code. The first port of Linux to a non-x86 architecture was Alpha. Alpha didn't have TSS, so more code could be shared if all archs used SW switching. (Just a guess.) Unfortunately the kernel changelogs for the 1.2-1.3 kernel period are not well-preserved, so I can't be more specific.
Linux doesn't use a segmented memory model, so this segmentation specific feature isn't used.
x86 CPUs have many different kinds of hardware support for context switching, so the distinction isn't hardware vs software, but more how does an OS use the various hardware features available. It isn't necessary to use them all.
Linux is so efficiency focussed that you can bet that someone has profiled every option that is possible, and that the options currently used are the best available compromise.
Azul Systems has an appliance that supports thousands of cache coherent CPUs. I would love insight into what changes would need to occur to an operating system in order to schedule thousands of simultaneously running threads.
Scheduling thousands of threads is not a big deal, but scheduling them on hundreds of CPUs is. What you need, first and foremost, is very fine-grained locking, or, better yet, lock-free data structures and algorithms. You just can't afford to let 200 CPUs waiting while one CPU executes a critical section.
You're asking for possible changes to the OS, so I presume there's a significant engineering team behind this effort.
There are also a few pieces of clarififying info that would help define the problem parameters:
How much IPC (inter process communication) do you need?
Do they really have to be threads, or can they be processes?
If they're processes, is it okay if the have to talk to each other through sockets, and not by using shared memory?
What is the memory architecture? Are you straight SMP with 1024 cores, or is there some other NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Architecture) or MMP going on here? What are your page tables like?
Knowing only the very smallest of info about Azul systems, I would guess that you have very little IPC, and that a simple "run one kernel per core" model might actually work out just fine. If processes need to talk to each other, then they can create sockets and transfer data that way. Does your hardware support this model? (You would likely end up needing one IP address per core as well, and at 1024 IP addrs, this might be troublesome, although they could all be NAT'd, and maybe it's not such a big deal). If course, this model would lead to some inefficiencies, like extra page tables, and a fair bit of RAM overhead, and may even not be supported by your hardware system.
Even if "1 kernel per core" doesn't work, you could likely run 1024/8 kernels, and be just fine, letting each kernel control 8 physical CPUs.
That said, if you wanted to run 1 thread per core in a traditional SMP machine with 1024 cores (and only a few physical CPUs) then I would expect that the old fashioned O(1) scheduler is what you'd want. It's likely that your CPU[0] will end up nearly 100% in kernel and doing interrupt handling, but that's just fine for this use case, unless you need more than 1 core to handle your workload.
Making Linux scale has been a long and ongoing project. The first multiprocessor capable Linux kernel had a single lock protecting the entire kernel (the Big Kernel Lock, BKL), which was simple, but limited scalability.
Subsequently the locking has been made more fine-grained, i.e. there are many locks (thousands?), each covering only a small portion of data. However, there are limits to how far this can be taken, as fine-grained locking tends to be complicated, and the locking overhead starts to eat up the performance benefit, especially considering that most multi-CPU Linux systems have relatively few CPU's.
Another thing, is that as far as possible the kernel uses per-cpu data structures. This is very important, as it avoids the cache coherency performance issues with shared data, and of course there is no locking overhead. E.g. every CPU runs its own process scheduler, requiring only occasional global synchronization.
Also, some algorithms are chosen with scalability in mind. E.g. some read-mostly data is protected by Read-Copy-Update (RCU) instead of traditional mutexes; this allows readers to proceed during a concurrent update.
As for memory, Linux tries hard to allocate memory from the same NUMA node as where the process is running. This provides better memory bandwidth and latency for the applications.
My uneducated guess would be that there is a run-queue per processor and a work-stealing algorithm when a processor is idle. I could see this working in an M:N model, where there is a single process per cpu and light-weight processes as the work items. This would then feel similar to a work-stealing threadpool, such as the one in Java-7's fork-join library.
If you really want to know, go pick up Solaris Internals or dig into the Solaris kernel code. I'm still reading Design & Impl of FreeBSD, with Solaris Internals being the next on my list, so all I can do is make wild guesses atm.
I am pretty sure that the SGI Altix we have at work, (which does ccNUMA) uses special hardware for cache coherency.
There is a huge overhead connected to hold 4mb cache per core coherent. It's unlikely to happen in software only.
in an array of 256 cpus you would need 768mb ram just to hold the cache-invalidation bits.
12mb cache / 128 bytes per cache line * 256² cores.
Modifying the OS is one thing, but using unchanged application code is a waste of hardware. When going over some limit (depending on the hardware), the effort to keep coherency and synchronization in order to execute generic code is simply too much. You can do it, but it will be very expensive.
From the OS side you'll need complex affinity model, i.e. not to jump CPUs just because yours is busy. Scheduling threads based on hardware topology - cooperating threads on CPUs that are "close" to minimize penalties. Simple work stealing is not a good solution, you must consider topology. One solution is hierarchical work stealing - steal work by distance, divide topology to sectors and try to steal from closest first.
Touching a bit the lock issue; you'll still use spin-locks nd such, but using totally different implementations. This is probably the most patented field in CS these days.
But, again, you will need to program specifically for such massive scale. Or you'll simply under-use it. No automatic "parallelizers" will do it for you.
The easiest way to do this is to bind each process/thread to a few CPUS, and then only those CPUs would have to compete for a lock on that thread. Obviously, there would need to be some way to move threads around to even out the load, but on a NUMA architecture, you have to minimize this as much as possible.
Even on dual-core intel systems, I'm pretty sure that Linux can already handle "Thousands" of threads with native posix threads.
(Glibc and the kernel both need to be configured to support this, however, but I believe most systems these days have that by default now).