k42: building a complete os orran krieger, marc auslander, bryan rosenburg, robert wisniewski, jimi...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
K42: Building a Complete OS
Orran Krieger, Marc Auslander, Bryan Rosenburg, Robert Wisniewski, Jimi Xenidis, Dilma Da Silva,
Michal Ostrowski, Jonathan Appavoo, Maria Butrico, Mark Mergen, Amos Waterland, Volkmar Uhlig
http://www.research.ibm.com/K42
Our Predictions 1996
• Microsoft Windows will dominate• Large-scale SMMP increasingly important• Within 5 years multi-core pervasive• Traditional OS structures not maintainable • Customizability and extensibility critical• Within 5 years 64-bit pervasive
Sufficient motivation to design entirely new OS.
Small aggressive research team.
Resulting K42 Goals• performance/scalability:
– up to large MP and large applications– down for small-scale MP and small apps on large-scale MP
• flexibility/customizability: – policies/implementations of resource instances can be customized to
application needs– system can adapt without penalizing common case performance
• applicability– full functionality with multiple personalities– support client to embedded to server
• wide availability– release open source and build community– highly maintainable/extensible structure
• enable problem domain experts• re-enable architectural innovation• re-enable OS research community
Technical directions 1996
• Micro-kernel design • User-level implementation• OO design • Extensive infrastructure &
programming model• Pervasive exploitation of
64 bits• Application manager for
fault containment Micro-kernel
Servers
Legacy OS emulation
K42 lib
Application
Legacy OSemulation
K42 lib
Application
Memory
Processors
Service Interface
External Service Requests
Software Structures
Memory
Processors
Add brick
Memory
Processors
Scale up
Scaling existing OSes
•Incremental approach of optimizing global data structures/policies … focuses on concurrency rather than locality.
•Poor scaling of SW requires major HW investments to compensate, resulting in:
• Systems that are not cost competitive.• Limits to the system scalability.
Memory
Processors
Service Interface
External Service Requests
Memory
Processors
Add brick
Memory
Processors
Scale up
Software Structures
Our solution
•Key elements of our solution:•System services that avoid sharing when
possible.•OO design with per-resource instance objects•Exploit sharing where workload demands or
where performance is not critical.•Tools to identify sharing problems and
develop basic design methodology and set of tools to simplify the task of fixing the SW.
Independent workloadsmodified SDET
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
-1 4 9 14 19 24
Processors
Scri
pts
/H
ou
r
Linux
K42
Parallel PostMark
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
-1 4 9 14 19 24
Processors
Speedu
p
LinuxK42
Parallel Make (flex)
0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 4 9 14 19 24
Processors
Speedu
p
LinuxK42
Memclone benchmark: Memory intensive parallel application
0
500
1000
1 5 9 13 17 21
Linux 2.4.21
K42
0
500
1000
1 5 9 13 17 21
ms
ec
pe
r th
rea
d
All MM objects distributed
All MM objects shared
Customization
• User-level implementation allows per-application customizations.
• Framework per service designed to:– Separate mechanism/policy that can be independently customized.– Application or agents can determine which implementation to use
for workload.
• Dynamic customizations: patches/updates, adaptive algorithms, specializing common case, monitoring, application optimizations– Hot swapping: replacing O1 with O2 to adapt to new demands– Dynamic upgrade: replace all objects of a type
Hot-swapping
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of concurrent background streams
SDET
thro
ughp
ut (s
crip
ts/h
our)
LRU
Adaptive
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Shared Shared-Exclusive Shared-Exclusive /Small-Large
Tran
sact
ions
per
sec
ond
Adaptive paging Adaptive file imp.
Infrastructure & Programming model
• Clustered objects• Pervasive use of RCU to avoid existence locks• Event based programming model• Performance monitoring• Scalable services
– Protected Procedure calls– Locality aware memory allocation– Processor specific memory
• Automated interface generator/xobject services automate security, garbage collecting, …
Massive investment in/on Linux• In late 90s Linux appeared to be taking off & we abandoned
multiple personalities• Linux API/ABI compatibility largely in library, exceptions:
– Server code for process groups, ptys…– Fork has had way too pervasive impact on kernel MM (we violated our
programming style).• Support both unmodified glibc via trap reflection, and
modified glibc.• Applications with specialized needs can reach past Linux
personality, e.g., to instantiate object, handle events…• We are also compatible with Linux kernel modules, including
device drivers, FS & TCP/IP stack:– Tracking Linux is an ongoing nightmare
Our Predictions 1996
Microsoft Windows will dominate Wasted huge amount of time on multiple personality support.
Large-scale SMMP increasingly important.– True, but much slower than expected.– Massive investment in HW:
• allows existing OSes to run reasonably well• Makes SMMP not cost effective
Within 5 years multi-core pervasive– Only common today, not compelling differentiator until now
Traditional OS structures not maintainable. Customizability and extensibility critical
Within 5 years 64-bit pervasive.– Only common today, this has been a huge barrier to building community
Mistakes/Questions• We should have had a 32-bit version. • Application manager was a bad idea, we totally missed on
virtualization:– Gets rid of the device driver nightmare– Can deploy new OS to solve subset of problem.
• While user-level implementation & micro-kernel clean, continuous challenge & orthogonal to OO design
• We implemented fork wrong!!!• OO design, and infrastructure, obscures control flow:
– Much more difficult for Linux hacker to gain broad understanding.– Requires more sophisticated debugging tools.
• Does OO really help maintainability?
The good news• High degree of functionality:
– 32 & 64 bit apps, support standard gentoo tree, MPI. – Applications/benchmarks include SPEC SDET, ReAIM, SPECfp,
many HPC apps (DARPA & DOE)– Recently provided enough support to run commercial JVM (J9)
and DB2. • Object-oriented design has advantages...
– have found special casing easy– hot-swapping simpler than adaptive algorithm– Clustered objects relatively simple to do– local fixes, publish interface not structure– Domain experts/students can easily develop specialized
component. • Have been able to work around global policies, e.g.,
paging.
The good news• General performance monitoring infrastructure key to
identifying problems.• We achieved excellent base performance (although since
degraded); can compensate for intrinsic overheads: – advantages of Linux's hierarchical page tables: exception level traversal,
identify PT entry for fast unmap and avoid segment unmapping, aggressive fork pre-mapping for anonymous memory
– user-level implementation: cost initialization, page fault costs on fork– OO design: indirections, code replication, poor instruction cache
locality, per-object data structures…– initialization costs of scalable implementations compensate by lazy
initialization & hot swapping/specialization…
Ongoing projects
• IBM PERCS for DARPA HPCS– PEM and CPO & architectural evaluation
• DOE/FastOS – HEC with K42 at LBL, UNM, UofToronto– SmartApps at Texas A&M
• New South Wales (dynamic upgrade)• Device drive I/O & Super page support with
LTC
Concluding remarks• Sufficiently functionality & performance to run real
workloads. • A great framework for fundamental OS research and HW
architecture studies. • Basic architecture/technologies largely successful.• Virtualization, pervasive 64-bit processors, and pervasive
multi-core makes design more relevant than at any time in project history.
• Most of IBM team no longer have K42 as day job, but are still passionate about it:– We continue to be excited to support community.– We are actively soliciting people to take over parts of the system.
top related