|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

User-space device drivers

Peter Chubb works with the Gelato project, which works toward better Linux performance on the IA-64 architecture. Among other things, Peter is responsible for the 64-bit sector support which went into the 2.5 kernel. At Linux.Conf.Au, Peter discussed device drivers. He pointed out that drivers, while making up roughly 50% of the code in the kernel, are responsible for 85% of all kernel bugs. Drivers tend to be written by people who would not normally be considered kernel hackers: hardware engineers, for example. These people tend to have a hard time dealing with the special nature of kernel programming, where interfaces are fluid, bugs are lethal, and many normal development tools are not available.

Driver authors - and their users - might have a much easier time if drivers could be written to run in user space. In addition to mitigating the above-mentioned kernel programming issues, user-space driver development would allow the creation of a stable ABI; it also, presumably, would eliminate any licensing issues associated with closed-source drivers. User-space driver writers could also use any language they choose, "even Python."

Peter and company have set out to make user-space drivers possible. Some of the necessary pieces are already in place. Standard Linux will allow a suitably privileged process to access I/O ports, for example. Low-address memory-mapped I/O registers can be accessed via a mmap() of /dev/mem. There is also an interface which gives user-space processes access to the PCI configuration space; this interface works via ioctl() calls on /proc files, though, thus upsetting the sensibilities of most kernel hackers. These facilities are enough to allow some user-space drivers (particularly XFree86) to work, but they are not sufficient to enable a wider range of drivers to move out of the kernel.

One of the big gaps is interrupts; there is no way, currently, for user-space processes to register and respond to device interrupts. A patch from the Gelato project addresses this gap by creating a set of files under /proc. A process wanting to deal with interrupt 11, say, would open /proc/irq/11/irq. Reading the resulting file descriptor enables the interrupt and blocks the process until a device interrupt happens; control then returns to user-space, which can figure out what to do. A typical user-space driver will set up a separate thread to wait for interrupts in this manner; the actual work can be handed off to a different thread within the program.

Peter presented some graphs showing that interrupt response times suffer very little when interrupt handlers run in user space. The main limitation at the moment seems to be the fact that shared interrupts are not supported.

Another thing that user-space processes cannot normally do is set up DMA operations. To enable DMA, a new set of system calls has been added. The interface appears to be in a bit of flux, but it will be something like the following. The driver starts by opening a special file for device operations:

    int usr_pci_open(int bus, int slot, int function);

There is then a function for setting up DMA mappings:

    int usr_pci_map(int fd, int cmd, struct mapping_info *info);

The cmd argument can be USR_ALLOC_CONSISTENT to set up a long-lived consistent mapping, or USR_MAP to create a streaming, scatter/gather mapping. In either case, the info argument is used to pass in the relevant information, and to get the necessary address(es). There is also, of course, a USR_UNMAP operation for when the DMA is complete.

Many user-space drivers will be able to obtain their requests directly from user space; the X server works in this way. Many other drivers, however, will need to hook into the kernel for this information. The current patch includes a mechanism (Peter described it as ugly) for a user-space block driver to register itself with the kernel and get I/O requests. It works by opening another special file and using it to communicate requests and responses back and forth. A similar interface apparently exists for network drivers.

Getting a user-space driver patch into the kernel could be an interesting challenge. Many kernel hackers, certainly, resist changes that look like they are pushing Linux toward something that looks like a microkernel architecture - or which might legitimize binary-only drivers. On the other hand, some drivers bring a great deal of baggage into the kernel with them which might be better kept in user space; think of some of the code required by some sound drivers or the modulation software needed by "linmodem" drivers. The ability to run these drivers in user space could be a nice thing to have.

See the Gelato user-level drivers page for more information.

Index entries for this article
KernelDevice drivers/In user space


to post comments

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 22, 2004 5:54 UTC (Thu) by danshearer (guest, #18686) [Link] (3 responses)

There are several threads hanging out of the "drivers in userspace" tangle.

One of them is filesystems, which are a very logical thing to do in userspace. Peter's work doesn't address that at all. Years ago (back in 2.0) Jeremy Fitzharding (sp?) from Sydney did userfs, which let you do things like mount an ftp site. Some obvious fs candidates such as imapfs involve very long strings and according to (a) people who really know what they are doing and (b) my bumbling experiments, 64k strings are a *really* bad idea in kernel modules.

Another one is virtualisation. Read Jeff Dike on pushing User Mode Linux into kernel space for some clues on where this might be going. Jeff articulates advanced architecture and design better than most, so it is worthwhile looking for his stuff. His idea in this case is to port UML from the current libc interfaces at the backend to kernel interfaces, something like a module. Think of it like IBM's VM with OSs running underneath that, and the kernel of each OS is in true kernel space but within that applications (drivers, in this case) are completely protected.

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 22, 2004 12:37 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] (2 responses)

Google for FUSE and LUFS for the most active user space FS projects. FUSE even has a bridge allowing the use of KDE IO slaves as a mountable filesystem.

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 22, 2004 21:22 UTC (Thu) by scripter (subscriber, #2654) [Link]

http://uservfs.sourceforge.net/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/avf

http://www.freenet.org.nz/python/lufs-python/

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 23, 2004 17:44 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]

You can find some information about the kioslave-fuse bridge at:
http://kde.ground.cz/tiki-index.php?page=KIO+Fuse+Gateway

And yes, it works, loading and saving files via konqueror in OOo or gimp
using ioslaves and fuse :-)

You can also contact me directly: neundorf@kde.org

Bye
Alex

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 22, 2004 19:53 UTC (Thu) by stuart2048 (guest, #6241) [Link] (2 responses)

What fun! Back in the days of "who's got the fastest IPC" my master's thesis project, the Raven Kernel, was based on a user level approach (for as much as I could get away with...).

I did interrupt dispatching quite differently than Gelato. In Gelato, a user thread "reads" interrupts from an open file descriptor. In Raven, I took a more asynchronous approach: the kernel interrupt handler upcalls into the user driver (essentially interrupting the user code), where it then directly executes the handler code to service the device.

My motivation here was to make the user handler code execute with as low latency as possible. There were some tricky corner cases to implement, but I eventually got it working. ;-)

But after all that, I much prefer the simplicity of Gelato's approach and will stay tuned to their progress!

--Stuart

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 23, 2004 20:45 UTC (Fri) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link] (1 responses)

Snare's userland audit daemon works in the same way Gelato does.. it loops reading audit events from /proc/audit. This method has the very great virtue of simplicity and it can actually be quite fast and efficient. It'll be neat to see where this goes for user mode drivers, but I wonder what happens if a user mode driver fails? Would the kernel be smart enough to stop preparing the data for the driver? I know when the Snare audit daemon closes /proc/audit, the kernel notices that it has been closed, and amends its behavior to avoid queueing up additional audit events.

User-space device drivers

Posted Mar 9, 2004 3:13 UTC (Tue) by PeterChubb (guest, #20062) [Link]

When a userland driver fails, just kill it and start again. You may lose a few packets (for a network device) or any transactions that are halfway throough (for a disc device), but in most cases, this can be recovered from.

In the case of a kernel mode driver, the same faults often require a reboot...

USB is different

Posted Jan 29, 2004 16:04 UTC (Thu) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link]

This Gelato approach would seem to be focussed on a particular style of userspace driver, which works on non-virtualized devices. Specifically, it aims for PCI (or ISA) style devices, where the device driver needs to touch "real hardware".

USB is a good example of a different style driver, one where the device driver can't touch the hardware. In fact you can view USB drivers as the clients in a client/server framework, with the "server" being the device. The bus is really a special purpose network link, used to exchange packets between device and host. (And always initiated by the host, not the device/"server".) So userspace USB drivers work with virtualized devices ... they start with a formalized protocol to talk with the hardware, which doesn't involve register access, IRQs, or memory mapping except indirectly.

There are two approaches right now to userspace USB drivers.

  • The original "usbfs" (or "usdevfs"), which is in sore need of replacement. It's ioctl-heavy, and multiplexes I/O streams (up to 32 per device) into one file descriptor. And it defines its own async I/O primitives. So while a Java API exists, it's awkward.
  • "gadgetfs" runs inside USB devices. It's got hardly any ioctls, and uses one file descriptor per I/O stream. Current versions of gadgetfs (not yet in Linux 2.6) use standard AIO calls to support data streaming from userspace.

There are discussions underway to create "usbfs2", which should eventually replace "usbfs". It'll look much more like gadgetfs than "usbfs", with few ioctls and using the standard AIO framework.

So that's something else to keep in mind. This Gelato framework doesn't seem like it'd work well with USB, or with other device models that have already upleveled and virtualized their hardware.

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 30, 2004 14:20 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

The interrupt delivery part is something that has been necessary for years, because X still can't give you any way to syncronize to VBL interrupts (except OpenGL).

On the other hand, I don't feel too happy with user land directly accessing IO ports. This is still dangerous, and buggy X drivers often can hang the machine, too. Memory mapped IO pages should be ok, given that the kernel would allow to map the PCI memory per device, not from /dev/mem. I suggets to keep the IO port part of a device driver inside kernel space.

User-space device drivers

Posted Jan 30, 2004 16:16 UTC (Fri) by joib (subscriber, #8541) [Link]

IIRC the Plan 9 operating system allows user-space device drivers. They reason they did that was to bring the development advantages of microkernels described in this article, and then by loading the hopefully debugged driver into the kernel proper the speed benefits of a monolithic kernel are available. I think the point was that the same device driver code could be used for both, though a recompile is almost certainly needed?

Event-driven API

Posted Jun 19, 2007 8:35 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link]

This all sounds pretty horrible. Back in '83 or '84, the Amiga came out,
with a much nicer, event-driven device API. At least from the client
side, it was just a matter of sending events. So, say, for the narrator
device, you would send something like { SET_PITCH, ..., 2000 }, and it
would set the pitch of the speaker's voice. This was asynchronous of
course, so it worked really well with devices like SCSI units/buses.

Presumably the server side was basically just registering a message queue,
and waiting for instructions.

This wasn't a memory-protected kernel, but if we're talking userspace
anyway, then it shouldn't matter. The OS was fully multitasking, and
fairly real-time for the day, as I understand it.

Why not use a model like this?


Copyright © 2004, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds