Re: Allocating kernel memory
From: Kasper Dupont (kasperd_at_daimi.au.dk)
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 09:25:50 +0200
George Nelson wrote:
> Kasper Dupont <email@example.com> wrote in message news:<40A6236B.4DCBF5EC@daimi.au.dk>...
> > But who is to blame? Using 1% of your RAM for
> > management data seems fair to me. And I know a
> > lot of people complain about the 3GB for user
> > space being too restrictive. And the cost of
> > changing page tables on each user/kernel switch
> > is too high.
> I never complained about the real memory that was used but pointed out
> that a large portion of the kernel virtual address space is used up.
Excactly my point. On a system with the virtual
address space as large as the physical, Linux would
have at least 25% of the physical memory mapped, and
using 1% of that would still leave 24%
> Also read section 3.7.3, Mixing 4KB and 4MB byte pages.
Where do I find that? The link you posted earlier
doesn't work anymore.
> I'm afraid you are wrong. Paging was introduced primarily to resolve a
> memory fragmentation problem. I do not disagree with the other
> benefits that have been made possible from paging but its basic intent
> was to resolve the issue in early OS's of allocating space in a real
> address memory system. By treating memory in pages and having H/W
> assist to translate a virtual address to a physical address resolved
> the memory fragmentation problem which meant either a roll-out,
> roll-in of processes or a memory move when holes appeared in the
> physical memory space. It was quickly seen that paging allowed
> programs to have a larger virtual address space than available real
> memory, the possibility of shared memory and a few additional safety
> features (e.g not mapping the page at virtual address 0).
But those are all things which happened before the
first version of Linux was designed. And it doesn't
really matter which came first, the point is all the
advantages of paging are more important than the
minor performance hit.
> > The performance hit cause by paging shouldn't be
> > much. If the page is in TLB the access should be
> > as fast as it would have been if paging was not
> > enabled. So TLB misses is the only cost.
> No. It still takes some time to perform the TLB lookup even though
> that is significantly less than accessing the page table in memory.
As long as it can be done within the same clockcycle
it doesn't matter how long time it takes, it would
still not affect the end result in any way. I don't
have any meassurements, but I don't belive the CPU
designers would allow a TLB lookup to slow down the
memory access. The memory bandwidth really should
be the bottleneck.
> Disable paging at that will remove this. Every instruction and data
> access will incur the TLB lookup penalty, small though it is.
Actually AFAIK the TLB is between L1-cache and
L2-cache, and with TLB in associative memory, the
answer should come in the same clockcycle as it
would have without.
> If paging does not invoke a
> performance hit why is it that Cray supercomputers are real memory
Maybe they can push the clock frequency a litle higher
that way. And they save space on the that can be used
for more cache or something like that. They also have
less work to do when designing the CPU.
Comparing a CPU without paging support and CPU with
paging support is definitely not the same as comparing
an OS with and without paging support running on a CPU
that does have the support.
> All I have done is express surprise at the 1GB address space limit.
The reasons for that design decission should have been
made clear by now.
> But 32-bit architectures will be around for a long time yet and real
> memory will increase. Commercial users will want to get the best out
> of their current investment and are more likely to add memory, disk to
> an existing (32-bit system) than replace them.
Sure, you can add more memory to your systems. But the
problem really only applies to PAE systems, where you
can add a lot more than 4GB of RAM. How many of them
are there "out there"? Those 8GB systems I could find
were using more than 50% of the zone 1 memory for stuff
that could have been on zone 2. So you shouldn't
experience any problem on an 16GB system either.
Deploying new systems with those problems today seems
like a bad idea to me. If you need more than 4GB of
RAM you should avoid PAE, AMD64 is a better design.
So we are only talking about systems with PAE and
motherboards that support more than 16GB of RAM. I
don't think those systems are so common, that they
justify a significant design change. Besides there is
a 4:4 split patch which you can use if you have one of
those systems and are prepared to take the performance
> And changing
> architectures is only a temporary measure.
Maybe. But problems would be like 20 years away if
systems continue to grow at the current pace. And who
knows what is going to happen the next 20 years?
> Now we are
> at the stage where the opposite is the case, real memory systems
> larger than the address space are economically viable.
That has happened many times before. What this really
show is people not wanting to replace an obsolete
architecture. 64 bit systems should hav been the
standard for many years.
When a 16 bit address space became too small, hardware
with bankswitching was implemented as a workaround.
When the 20 bit address space of 8086 became too small
EMS did basically the same to work around the limit.
When 32 bit address space became too small, PAE was
introduced. All workarounds instead of a fix, i.e. a
And hopefully if/when we reach the limitations of 64
bit there will be implemented 128 bit systems instead
of stupid workarounds like PAE, bankswitching, etc.
But obviously I'm too optimistic.
> I see no reason
> why this trend will change and the similar problems will arise at some
> point in the future for 64-bit systems.
Nobody knows. There are people suggesting, that the
current trend cannot continue for another 20 years.
> A simpler, more elegant kernel perhaps?
We had that. But it was limited to 1GB of physical RAM.
(And 2GB of physical RAM with a 2:2 split). The demand for
more RAM lead to the current design. Actually I recall a
comparision between Linux and Windows which was done for
Microsoft many years ago. It was at a time when 32MB of
RAM was a luxury. Microsoft decided the comparision were
to be done on a computer with 4GB of RAM because they
knew Linux would not use all of it.
With PAE the simple elegant design is not possible. There
is no way you can put 64GB of RAM into a 4GB address space.
A new design was required. And since we had a design that
would allow the kernel address space to be smaller than
the physical RAM, the 1GB extra that was in some cases
taken for the kernel could be reclaimed for user space.
> With a 1GB address space on a
> 64GB memory system more than likely used as a server, the demands
> placed on kernel memory resources for memory will be great (large
> number of user processes each with their kernel resident data
> structures, internal structures to handle memory managment, I/O,
> buffer caches and so on).
I just took a look on how much memory was used for those
purposes on two 8GB systems. The memory reserved for
kernel code and the mem_map array is about 128MB. In
addition the structures you are talking about are all
allocated from the slabs, and are typicaly the only slab
users with any significant amount of allocations. The
slabs on those two systems used respectively 135 and 270
MB of RAM. So while they might not scale to a 64GB
physical RAM system, there is certainly no problem with
having only one fourth of your physical RAM in address
space, as will be the case on a better architecture.
BTW the kernel data required for a process is AFAIK
about 16KB all included, and work is being done on
reducing that. Recent kernels reduced the stack from
8KB to 4KB. That means 1000 processes (which is a
pretty high number) would still only require 16MB of
> This in turn will cause the kernel to spend
> more time managing memory reducing performance
I don't see why.
> and limiting the scalability of the system
Not if you compile the kernel for a reasonable
> Also, if there is no use for a
> kernel with a larger address space then why are there kernel versions
> with a 2:2 split
That was before high memory was introduced. At that
time the kernel could not use the memory at all if
it did not fit into the kernel address space. So a
system with 1GB of physical RAM could not use all
of the physical RAM unless you used the 2:2 split.
With the introduction of high memory the 2:2 split
was removed because you no longer needed a large
kernel address space.
> and I believe there is also a patch for a 4GB kernel
> address space?
That is because on a PAE system with 64GB of physical
RAM the 1GB kernel address space is really too small.
That means the 4:4 patch is really a workaround for a
> I guess I am not alone.
You have 2GB of physical RAM. There is one hell of a
difference between 2GB and 64GB. Nobody in their
right minds would use the 4:4 patch for such a small
> > > The existing solution sucks and only helps when any user
> > > process is transferring data in/out of the kernel
> > That actually happens a lot. But no, you are not even
> > right about that. Every kernel/user switch would be
> > slowed down by a need to switch page tables. That means
> > you'd have to pay the price on every single exception,
> > system call, interrupt, and so on.
> How long does it take to load a segment selector?
No you would need to switch page tables, that is the
> One segment selector selects
> the kernel page table the other selects the user process page table.
> Two separate 4GB address spaces, little overhead, no TLB flushing and
Are you talking about the same architecture as the
4:4 split is written for. According to this posting
from the kernel mailing list, the price is real:
If you know about features in the architecture that
the kernel developers does not know about, I think
you should tell them about it. Post your ideas to
the kernel mailing list and get praised (or hammered
down because you don't know what you are talking
> > > - as soon as a task
> > > switch takes place the TLB's are flushed anyway.
> > Right, but they are rare. The kernel does a great work
> > to make them as rare as by any means possible.
> Only every time a process is scheduled to run. Not sure what the
> process time quantum is under Linux (about 1/5th of a second I think).
> So at least every quantum interval there is likely to be a TLB flush
> in a multi-process environment (since this will cause a process switch
> and a change in page tables for the new process).
And 1/5th of a second is rare compared to the
thousands of interrupts per second. And tens of
thousands (if not millions) of system calls per
In a multiprocessor system with fewer CPU bound
processes than CPUs, it should be possible for
those to run for multiple seconds without a TLB
You can switch from a user mode process to a
kernel thread and back again without a TLB flush.
And between use processes (threads) sharing their
entire address space.
-- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid paa usenet. For sending spam use firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.