1. The Multikernel: A new OS architecture for scalable multicore systems Andrew Baumann et al. 2009. 10. 08. CS530 Graduate Operating System Presented by Jaeung Han, Changdae Kim SOSP’09 1

2. Introduction Mix of cores, caches, interconnect links.. –Increase scalability & correctness challenges for OS designers –No longer acceptable to tune a general-purpose OS design Rethinking the structure of the OS –build the OS as a distributed system Multikernel –Allow us to apply insights from distributed system 2/26

3. Observation The architecture of future computer –Rising core counts –Increasing hardware diversity 3/26

4. Future computer - Many cores Many cores –Sharing within the OS is becoming a problem Cache-coherence protocol limits scalability –Prevents effective use of heterogeneous cores Scaling existing OSes –Increasingly difficult to scale conventional OSes Removal of dispatcher lock in Windows7 6k line of code in 58 files –Optimizations are specific to hardware platforms Cache hierarchy, consistency model, access costs 4/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

5. Future computer – Increasing hardware diversity Non-uniformity –Memory hierarchy becomes more complicated NUMA.. Many levels of cache sharing –Device access –Interconnect increasingly looks like a network Core diversity –Architectural differences on a single die: Streaming instructions(SIMD, SSE, etc) Virtualization support, power management –Within a system Programmable NICs GPUs FPGAs (in CPU sockets) 5/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

6. Future computer – Increasing hardware diversity System diversity 6/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

7. Future computer – Increasing hardware diversity System diversity 7/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

8. Future computer – Increasing hardware diversity System diversity 8/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

9. Observation The architecture of future computer –Rising core counts –Increasing hardware diversity → Monolithic OS need to delicate balancing between resources Increasing node heterogeneity –Prevents memory structure optimization at source code level –Need to adapt its communication patterns at run time → Future general-purpose system will have limited support for cache coherence or shared memory → Time to reconsider how the OS should be reconstructed 9/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

10. The multikernel model Multikernel: –OS as a distributed system of cores Communicate using messages No memory is shared –Design principle Make all inter-core communication explicit Make OS structure hardware- neutral View state as replicated instead of shared 10/26

11. Traditional OS vs. multikernel Traditional OSes scale up by: –Reducing lock granularity –Partitioning state Multikernel –State partitioned/replicated by default rather then shared 11/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

12. Why message-passing? Decouples system structure from inter-core communication mechanism –Communication patterns explicitly expressed –Naturally supports heterogeneous cores –Naturally supports non-coherent interconnects Better match for future hardware –With cheap explicit message passing –Without cache-coherence 12/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

13. Make inter-core communication explicit No memory is shared between each core Explicit communication facilitates.. –Reasoning about the use of the system interconnect –The OS to deploy well-known networking optimization –The OS to provide isolation and resource management on heterogeneous cores –Decoupling the requests and responses –The human or automated analysis 13/26

14. Make OS structure hardware-neutral Separate the OS structure as much as possible from the hardware –Adapting the OS to run on hardware with new performance characteristics will not require extensive changes to the code base –Isolate the distributed communication algorithms from hardware implementation details –Enable late binding of both the protocol implementation & message transport 14/26

15. View state as replicated The state is replicated and consistency is maintained by exchanging messages –Improve system scalability By reducing load on the system interconnect Contention for memory Overhead for synchronization Replication is.. –Required to support domains that do not share memory –A useful framework within which to support changes to the set of running cores in an OS 15/26

16. Barrelfish A substantial prototype operating system structured according to the multikernel model Goals for Barrelfish –Give comparable performance –Demonstrates evidence of scalability –Can be re-targeted to different hardware without refactoring –Can exploit the message-passing abstraction –Can exploit the modularity of the OS 16/26

17. Implementation of Barrelfish (1/4) System structure –Factored the OS instance on each core into a privileged-mode CPU driver and a distinguished user mode monitor process 17/26

18. Implementation of Barrelfish (2/4) CPU drivers –Enforces protection, performs authorization, time-slices processes, mediates access to the core and hardware –Serially handles traps and exceptions –Shares no state with other cores Completely event-driven, single-threaded, nonpreemptable Monitors –Collectively coordinate system-wide state –Encapsulate much of the mechanism and policy that would be found in the kernel of a traditional OS –Mediates local operations on global state –Replicated data structures are kept globally consistent 18/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

19. Implementation of Barrelfish (3/4) Process structure –Represented by a collection of dispatcher objects –Communication is occur between dispatchers Inter-core communication –All communication occurs with messages Cache-coherent shared memory Memory management –Physical memory must be managed as a global resource All memory management is performed explicitly through system calls 19/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

20. Implementation of Barrelfish (4/4) System knowledge base –Maintains knowledge of the underlying hardware –Runs as on OS service –Used by OS to derive system policies 20/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

21. Evaluation Unmap (TLB shootdown) –Send a message to every core with a mapping, wait for all to be acknowledged –Linux/Windows: 1.Kernel sends IPIs 2.Spins on acknowledgement –Barrelfish: 1.User request to local monitor 2.Single-phase commit to remote monitors 21/26 Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems

22. Results of unmap (TLB shootdown) 22/26

23. Evaluation IP loopback 23/26

24. Evaluation Compute-bound workloads –NAS OpenMP, SPLASH-2 24/26

25. Evaluation IO workloads –Network throughput 951.7 Mbit/s vs. 951 Mbit/s UDP echo –Web server and relational DB 18697 requests per second vs. 8924 requests per second for lihttpd/Linux 25/26

26. Conclusion Current OS structure is poorly suited for future hardware architectures –Poor at managing diversity and scale Multicore machines resemble networked system –Need to view the OS as a distributed system Concurrency, communication, heterogeneity Tailor messaging mechanisms and algorithms to the machine Hide sharing as an optimization Borrowed from The Barrelfish operating system for heterogeneous multicore systems 26/26

27. Heterogeneous core works well rather than homogeneous core –http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/tullsen/isca04.pdfhttp://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/tullsen/isca04.pdf Heterogeneous core consume less power than homogeneous core –http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/tullsen/micro03.pdf 27/26