LWN Weekly Edition
Front pageSecurity
Kernel development
Distributions
Development
Announcements
->One big page
This page
Previous weekFollowing week
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Kernel developmentBrief items Kernel release statusThe current development kernel is 2.6.32-rc4, released on October 11. It has lots of small fixes and a pair of new SCSI drivers. The short-form changelog is in the announcement, or see the full changelog for all the details.2.6.32-rc5 is to be expected on October 15, immediately prior to Linus's travel to Tokyo for the 2009 Kernel Summit. The current stable kernel is 2.6.31.4, released (along with 2.6.27.37) on October 12. These updates contain another set of important fixes for these kernels; this summary by Andy Whitcroft for a bit more information on the changes in 2.6.31.4.
Quotes of the week (Linus special)
That driver is _not_ "just a driver". It's something
more. Something dank and smelly, that has grown in dark and
forbidding places.
-- Linus Torvalds
Again, you're living in that dream world. Wake up, sheeple.
-- Linus Torvalds
BIOS writers write crap, because it's a crap job. It's that simple. Yes, they're probably drunk or drugged up, but they need it to deal with the hand they have been dealt.... So stop blaming the BIOS. We _know_ firmware is crap - there is no point in blaming it. The response to "firmware bug" should be "oh, of course - and our code was too fragile, since it didn't take that into account". And stop saying these problems would magically go away with open-source firmware. That just shows that you don't understand the realities of the situation. Even an open-source bios would end up having buggy tables, and even with an opensource bios, users generally wouldn't upgrade it.
Any time people do ad-hoc locking with "clever" schemes, it's
almost invariably buggy. So the rule is: just don't do that.
-- Linus Torvalds
StanseStatic analysis tools can bring great value to the development process; they often find bugs which escape review and which, potentially, can live in the code base for years. Linux has benefited from bug reports from Coverity's tools, but those tools are proprietary. Unfortunately, free static analysis tools have always lagged the proprietary alternatives.That won't change overnight, but there is a new contender on the block in the form of Stanse; the 1.0 version was recently announced on the kernel mailing list. Specific problems that Stanse can test for include locking errors, memory leaks, failure to check for memory allocation failures, non-atomic operations in atomic context, and some reference counting errors. A list of kernel bugs found by Stanse has been posted. Clearly, it would be nice to extend Stanse with more tests. Many kernel developers may balk at doing that, though; Stanse is a Java application, and checker rules must be written in XML. That limits rule additions to those who are both familiar with kernel code and able to work in a Java/XML environment.
Looking forward to the kernel summitThe 2009 Kernel Summit will be held October 19 and 20 in Tokyo, Japan, immediately prior to the Japan Linux Symposium. This will be the first time that the Summit has been held in Asia. If nothing else, the sight of that many kernel hackers running loose in Akihabara should be amusing.The draft agenda for the event has been posted; as usual, it gives an insight into the kinds of problems which are seen to be pressing at this time. Following the tradition of the last few years, the Summit is spending a relatively small amount of time on specific technical issues; that kind of problem is usually best solved on the mailing lists and with code. What face-to-face meetings are often best for, instead, is process-oriented issues. The agenda this time contains a panel consisting of (unnamed, thus far) end users from both the embedded and enterprise communities. Enterprise representatives have been fairly common participants at these meetings, but the presence of the embedded user community is new. With any luck, this panel will encourage the trend whereby embedded systems vendors are participating more in the development process. On the second day, instead, the Summit will hear from a user not normally associated with embedded systems: there will be a session on Google's use of Linux and problems which have been encountered. Another process-oriented session is the perennial "regressions and kernel quality" topic. A separate session looks at performance regressions in particular; it's likely to follow up on a similar discussion held during the kernel developers' panel at LinuxCon. There's also sessions on how linux-next and the staging tree work, and an open session on improving the development process. On the technical side, the summit begins with summary reports from a number of recently-held mini-summits. Perf events and tracing occupy a significant chunk of time; some of that will be dedicated to a demonstration of what can be done with perf, ftrace, and timechart. There will be discussions on expanding the use of the device tree abstraction to other architectures, improving generic architecture support, and the merging of the remaining realtime preemption patches. The "hacking hour," introduced last year, is back; there has been a suggestion that the topic this year could be big kernel lock elimination. As usual, LWN editor Jonathan Corbet will be there to report on the discussion. Reports will be posted as soon as they are available; stay tuned.
On the driver life cycleAs a general rule, all new features are supposed to be added to the kernel during the two-week merge window. There is an exception of sorts, though, for new device drivers. A well-written driver should not be able to cause regressions anywhere else in the kernel, and there is often value in getting it to users as quickly as possible. So drivers will often make it into the mainline when other large changes are barred.As the story of the recent SCSI fixes pull request shows, though, there are limits. This request included a pair of new drivers for high-end SCSI storage systems. Linus got grumpy for a few reasons: he would like to see subsystem maintainers try harder to get drivers in during the merge window, he thinks that the "driver exception" is mainly useful for consumer-level devices, and the driver in question here is not small bit of code - it's a 50,000 line monster. In the end, the driver was merged for 2.6.32-rc4, but Linus made it clear that he would rather see this kind of code during the merge window. The conversation drifted into whether the driver should have gone into the staging tree instead; those who looked at it did not describe it as the best code they had seen that day. SCSI maintainer James Bottomley sees the staging tree mainly as the place where user-space ABI issues are cleaned up. Mere code quality issues, he believes, are better handled directly in the SCSI tree. Others disagree; in the end, it will come down to what specific subsystem maintainers want to do. If the maintainer takes a new driver directly into the subsystem tree, nobody else can force it into staging instead. The discussion brought out another potential use for the staging tree - as a last resting place for old drivers on their way out of the kernel. Staging maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman noted:
It seems that I'm the only one that has the ability to drop drivers
out of the kernel tree, which is a funny situation :)
In thinking about this a lot more, I don't really mind it. If people want to push stuff out of "real" places in the kernel, into drivers/staging/ and give the original authors and maintainers notice about what is going on, _and_ provide a TODO file for what needs to happen to get the code back into the main portion of the kernel tree, then I'll be happy to help out with this and manage it. The idea remains hypothetical, though, until somebody actually uses the staging tree in this manner. It is hard to imagine a demotion to staging that would not be resisted by somebody; the first attempt to do so may well be interesting to watch.
Char devices for network interfacesOne of the longstanding quirks of BSD-inspired networking is that network interfaces are a strange sort of device. They live in their own namespace, do not appear in /dev, and generally fail to live up to the "everything is a file" idea that drives much of the POSIX API. That said, the Unix way of networking has functioned well for nearly 30 years. It is likely that few people were expecting a serious patch which tries to change things.This patch from "Narendra K" at Dell does exactly that, though, and in surprising ways. With this patch in place, every network interface gets an associated char device. It is a singularly useless device: any attempt to open it just returns ENOSYS. The only real reason for this device's existence, it turns out, is to generate events for udev which, in turn, can generate alternative names for the interface. Why this change? System vendors and administrators are getting tired of their network interfaces changing name at each boot. Non-deterministic interface naming is the result of a few factors, including weird BIOS behavior and the way current kernels enumerate devices via a parallel hot-plug approach. When interfaces change names, configuration scripts can get confused; the end result is rarely a working network. Some of this confusion can be avoided by carefully configuring interfaces based on their MAC address, but that, too, can fail in the face of "swap out the entire server" approach to fast failure recovery. Vendors have tried to work around some of these difficulties at the hardware level. Dell machines are designed to enumerate network interfaces in the same order as often as possible. HP blade servers can configure interface MAC addresses at power-on time. But there are limits to how many hardware hacks the vendors are willing to add to deal with this problem. This message from Matt Domsch is recommended reading for anybody wanting a full understanding of the difficulties here. Thus the patch, which allows udev to create pseudo-names for each interface based on criteria like the PCI slot number, chassis label, or anything else that seems to make sense. The patch is tied to the libnetdevname library, which maps these pseudo-names into the real interface name, which can then be used with the socket system calls. The patch has gotten a bit of a rough reception; it looks to some like a hack for problems which can be solved in other ways. The discussion has made it clear that a real problem exists, though, so some sort of solution will likely be applied in the end. Udev seems like the place for this solution to happen - that is how naming has been handled for every other device in the system, after all. So expect something to get in eventually, though the current may evolve somewhat before it is considered ready for merging.
Kernel development news Fixing kmap_atomic()Once upon a time, Linux was limited to less than 1GB of physical memory on 32-bit systems. This limit was imposed by two technical decisions: processes run with the same page tables in both kernel and user mode, and all physical memory had to be directly addressable by the kernel. Not changing page tables at every transition between kernel and user space is a significant performance win, but it forces the two modes to share the same 4GB address space. The directly-addressable requirement meant that total physical memory could not exceed the amount of virtual memory address space assigned to the kernel. Indeed, not even the full kernel space was available, due to the need to leave some space for I/O memory, vmalloc(), and so on. The normal split is 3GB for user space and 1GB for kernel space; that limited systems to a bit less than 1GB of physical memory.The way this problem was fixed was to create the concept of "high memory": memory which is not directly addressable by the kernel. Most of the time, the kernel does not need to directly manipulate much of the memory on the system; almost all user-space pages, for example, are usually only accessed in user mode. But, occasionally, the kernel must be able to reach into any page in the system. Zeroing new pages is one example; reading system call arguments from a user-space page is another. Since high-memory pages cannot live permanently in the kernel's virtual address space, the kernel needs a mechanism by which it can temporarily create a kernel-space address for specific high-memory pages. That mechanism is called kmap(); it takes a pointer to a struct page and returns a kernel-space virtual address for the page. When the kernel is done with the page, it must use kunmap() to unmap the page and make the address available for other mappings. kmap() works, but it can be slow; it requires translation lookaside buffer flushes and, potentially, cross-CPU interrupts for every mapping. Linus recently commented on the costs of high memory:
HIGHMEM accesses really are very slow. You don't see that in user
space, but I really have seen 25% performance differences between
non-highmem builds and CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G enabled for things that
try to put a lot of data in highmem (and the 64G one is even more
expensive). And that was just with 2GB of RAM.
All that costly work is done to keep the kernel-space mapping consistent across all processors in the system, even though many of these mappings are used only briefly, and only on a single CPU. To improve performance, the kernel developers introduced a special version:
void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type idx);
The use of fixed slots requires that the code using these mappings be atomic - hence the name kmap_atomic(). If code holding an atomic kmap could be preempted, the thread which takes its place could use the same slots, with unfortunate results. The per-CPU nature of atomic mappings means that any cross-CPU migration would be disastrous. It's worth noting that there is no other protection against multiple use of specific slots; if two functions in a given call chain disagree about the use of KM_USER0, bad things are going to happen. In practice, this problem does not seem to actually bite people, though. This API has seen little change for years, but Peter Zijlstra has recently decided that it could use a face lift. The result is a patch series changing this fundamental interface and fixing the resulting compilation problems in over 200 files. The change is conceptually simple: the slots disappear, and the range of addresses is managed as a stack instead. After all, users of kmap_atomic() don't really care about which address they get; they just want an address that nobody else is using. The new API does force map and unmap operations to nest properly, but the atomic nature of these mappings means that usage generally fits that pattern anyway. There seems to be little question of this change being merged; Linus welcomed it, saying "I think this is how we should have done it originally." There were some quibbles about the naming in the first version of the patch (kmap_atomic() had become kmap_atomic_push()), but that was easily fixed for the second iteration. It is also interesting to look at how this patch series was reworked. The first version was a single patch which did all of the changes at once. In response to reviewers, Peter broke the second version down into four steps:
Doing things this way will make it a lot easier to debug any strange problems which result from the changes. The most significant change in terms of how the kernel works is step 2, so that's the patch which is most likely to create problems. But this organization makes that patch relatively small, so tracking down any residual bugs should be relatively easy. Instead, the really huge patch (part 3) should not really change the binary kernel at all, so the chances of it being problem-free are quite high. All that remains is getting this change merged. It's too late for 2.6.32, but putting it into linux-next is likely to create large numbers of patch conflicts. That is a common problem with wide-ranging patches like this, though; developers have gotten better over the years at maintaining them against a rapidly-changing kernel
Ask a kernel developer, part 2One in a series of columns in which questions are asked of a kernel developer and he tries to answer them. If you have unanswered questions relating to technical or procedural things around Linux kernel development, ask them in the comment section, or email them directly to the author.
How do I open an effective communication channel with a kernel developer to get my issues fixed?Despite the size of most kernel subsystem maintainer's inbox, this is a question that comes up a lot in conversations with users, so it is good to get it out there. The easiest way to communicate with a kernel developer about a problem is to write an email and send it to the subsystem list that handles the area in which you are having problems, and to copy the developers as well to make sure that they see the message. Ah, but how do you figure out what subsystem or mailing list to use? Luckily the kernel contains a list of the mailing lists and the developers responsible for the different kernel subsystems. The file, MAINTAINERS in the Linux kernel source tree, lists all of the different subsystems, the name of the maintainer, the email address, and the mailing list that is the best place to bring up things on. If there is no mailing list specified, then use the default linux-kernel mailing list address. If you narrow the problem down to a file that you are having questions about, the script scripts/get_maintainer.pl in the kernel source tree can find the proper people responsible for changing it last, as well as any maintainer and mailing lists automatically. For example, suppose you have a problem with the ftdi_sio driver, which is located in drivers/usb/serial/ftdio_sio.c. By running the get_maintainer.pl script with the -f option, you would get the following:
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Make sure you always send a copy to a development mailing list, do not just email kernel developers privately, as their email load is quite high. By emailing the mailing list, you offer up the ability for anyone to help you out with your question - taking advantage of the large development community - and you avoid overloading the individual maintainers any more than they are already overloaded.
What happens if I get no response from my email?Be persistent. If you do not hear back within a week, send a friendly "did you miss this email?" type response.
In the BSD world, there is a "security officer." Why is there no "security officer" for the Linux kernel?"It is true there is no one person responsible for security for the Linux kernel, it is a group of developers who have taken this role on. The email address security@kernel.org goes directly to this group of developers who will quickly respond to any reported problems. Instructions on how to contact this list, and the rules around which they operate concerning disclosure and amount of time before publicly fixing the problem, can be found in the Linux kernel file Documentation/SecurityBugs. If anyone has any questions about these rules, feel free to contact the security team for clarification.
Do you look at the code of the BSDs in order to find new ideas and concepts, or do you ignore them completely?This is a personal decision on where to find ideas to implement in Linux. As far as I am concerned, I have not looked at the BSDs in many many years, as I have been busy with lots of Linux-only things (driver model, USB, Linux Driver Project, etc.) But other kernel developers do work with the BSD developers on coming up with solutions to different problems, or to get proper hardware support for types of devices. Back in the early days of USB support in Linux, I did work with a number of the BSD USB kernel developers to share how specific devices operated so that drivers could be written for both operating systems, and overall, the developers are quite friendly toward each other, as we are working toward solving the same types of problems, but usually in different ways.
Deadline scheduling for LinuxMuch of the realtime scheduling work in Linux has been based around getting the best behavior out of the POSIX realtime scheduling classes. Techniques like priority inheritance, for example, exist to ensure that the highest-priority task really can run within a bounded period of time. In much of the rest of the world, though, priorities and POSIX realtime are no longer seen as the best way to solve the problem. Instead, the realtime community likes to talk about "deadlines" and deadline-oriented scheduling. In this article, we'll look at a deadline scheduler has recently been posted for review and related discussion at the recent Real Time Linux Workshop in Dresden.Priority-based realtime scheduling has the advantage of being fully deterministic - the highest-priority task always runs. But priority-based scheduling is subject to some unpleasant failure modes (priority inversion and starvation, for example), does not really isolate tasks running on the same system, and is often not the best way to describe the problem. Most tasks are more readily described in terms of an amount of work which must be accomplished within a specific time period; the desire to work in those terms has led to a lot of research in deadline-based scheduling in recent years. A deadline system does away with static priorities. Instead, each running task provides a set of three scheduling parameters:
Deadline-scheduled tasks usually recur on a regular basis - thus the period parameter - but sporadic work can also be handled with this model. There are some advantages to this model. The "bandwidth" requirement of a process - what percentage of a CPU it needs - is easily calculated, so the scheduler knows at the outset whether the system is oversubscribed or not. The scheduler can (and should) refuse to accept tasks which would require more bandwidth than the system has available. By refusing excess work, the scheduler will always be able to provide the requisite CPU time to every process within the specified deadline. That kind of promise makes realtime developers happy.
Linux currently has no deadline scheduler. There is, however, an implementation posted for
review by Dario Faggioli and others; Dario also presented this
scheduler in Dresden. This implementation uses the "earliest deadline first"
This scheduler is implemented with the creation of a new scheduling class called SCHED_EDF. It does away with the distinction between the "deadline" and "period" parameters, using a single time period for both. The patch places this class between the existing realtime classes (SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR) and the normal interactive scheduling class (SCHED_FAIR). The idea behind this placement was to avoid breaking the "highest priority always runs" promise provided by the POSIX realtime classes. Peter Zijlstra, though, thinks that deadline scheduling should run at the highest priority; otherwise it cannot ensure that the deadlines will be met. That placement could be seen as violating POSIX requirements; to that, Peter responds, "In short, sod POSIX." Peter would also like to name the scheduler SCHED_DEADLINE, for the simple reason that EDF is not the only deadline algorithm out there. In the future, it may be desirable to switch to a different algorithm without forcing applications to change which scheduling class they request. At the moment, the other contender would appear to be "least laxity first" scheduling, which picks the task with the smallest amount of "cushion" time between its remaining compute time and its deadline. Least laxity first tries to ensure that each process can complete its computing by the deadline. It tends to suffer from much higher context-switching rates than EDF, though, and nobody is pushing such a scheduler for Linux at the moment. One nice feature of deadline schedulers is that no process should be able to prevent another from completing its work before its deadline passes. The real world is messier than that, as we will see below, but, even in the absence of deeper problems, the scheduler can only make that guarantee if every process actually stops running within its declared WCET. The EDF scheduler solves that problem in an unsubtle way: when a process exceeds its bandwidth, it is simply pushed out of the CPU until its next deadline period begins. This approach is simple to implement and ensures that deadlines will be met, but it can be hard on a process which must do a bit of extra computing on occasion. In the SCHED_EDF patch, processes indicate the end of their processing period by calling sched_yield(). This modification to the semantics of that system call makes some developers uneasy, though; it is likely that the final patch will do something different. There may be a new "I'm done for now" system call added for this purpose. Peter also gave a talk in Dresden; his was mostly about why Linux does not have a deadline scheduler yet. The "what happens when a process exceeds its WCET" problem was one of the reasons he gave. Calculating the worst-case execution time is exceedingly difficult for any sort of non-trivial program. As Peter puts it, researchers have spent their entire lives trying to solve it. There are people working on automatically deriving WCET from the source, but they are far from being able to do this with real-world systems. So, for now, specification of the WCET comes down to empirical observations and guesswork. Another serious problem with EDF is that it works much better on single-processor systems than on SMP systems. True EDF on a multiprocessor system requires the maintenance of a global run queue, with all of the scalability problems that entails. One solution is to partition SMP systems, so that each CPU becomes an essentially independent scheduling domain; the SCHED_EDF patch works this way. Partitioned systems have their own problems, of course; the assignment of tasks to CPUs can be a pain, and it is hard (or impossible) to get full utilization if tasks cannot move between CPUs. Another problem with partitioning is that some scheduling problems simply cannot be solved without occasional process migration. Imagine a two-CPU system running three processes, each of which needs 60% of a single CPU's time. The system clearly has the resources to run those three processes, but not if it is unable to move processes between CPUs. So a partitioned EDF scheduler needs to be able to migrate processes occasionally; the SCHED_EDF developers have migration logic in the works, but it has not yet been posted.
Yet another serious problem, according to Peter, is priority inversion. The
priority inheritance techniques used to solve priority inversion are tied
to priorities; it is not clear how to apply them to deadline schedulers.
But the problem is real: imagine a process acquiring an important lock,
There are a few ways to approach this issue. Simplest, perhaps, is deadline inheritance: lock owners inherit the earliest deadline in the system for as long as they hold the lock. More sophisticated is bandwidth inheritance; in this case, a lock owner which has exhausted its WCET will receive a "donation" of time from the process(es) blocked on that lock. A variant of that technique is proxy execution: blocked processes are left on the run queue, but, when they "run," the lock owner runs in their place. Proxy execution gets tricky in SMP environments when multiple processes are blocked on the same lock; the result could be multiple CPUs trying to proxy-execute the same process. The solution to that problem appears to be to migrate blocked processes to the owner's CPU. Proxy execution also runs into difficulties when the lock-owning process is blocked for I/O. In that case, it cannot run as a proxy for the original blocked task, which must then be taken off the run queue. That, in turn, forces the creation of a "wait list" of processes which must be returned to a runnable state when a different process (the lock owner) becomes runnable. Needless to say, all this logic adds complexity and increases system overhead. The final problem, according to Peter, is POSIX, but it's an easy one to solve. Since POSIX is silent on the topic of deadline schedulers, we can do anything we want and life is good. He repeated that SCHED_DEADLINE will probably be placed above SCHED_FIFO in priority. There will be a new system call - sched_setscheduler_ex() - to enable processes to request the deadline scheduler and set the parameters accordingly; the SCHED_EDF patch already implements that call. So many of the pieces for deadline scheduling for Linux are in place, but a number of the details are yet to be resolved. The bottom line is that deadline schedulers in the real world are a non-trivial problem - something that is true of real-world scheduling in general. These problems should be solvable, though, and Linux should be able to support a deadline scheduler at some point in the future. That scheduler will probably make its first appearance in the realtime tree, naturally, but it could eventually find users well beyond the realtime community. Deadline schedulers are a fairly natural fit for periodic tasks like the management of streaming media, which could profitably make use of deadline scheduling to help eliminate jitter and dropped-data problems. But that remains a little while in the future; first, the code must be made ready for widespread use. And that, as we all know, is a process which recognizes few deadlines.
Patches and updates Kernel trees
Core kernel code
Development tools
Device drivers
Filesystems and block I/O
Janitorial
Memory management
Networking
Architecture-specific
Security-related
Virtualization and containers
Benchmarks and bugs
Miscellaneous
Page editor: Jonathan Corbet |
|||||||||||||||||||||
![[Peter Zijlstra]](/images/conf/rtlws11/peter-zijlstra-sm.jpg)