GNU Mach

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Hi,

still not subscribed, still not the preferred list to discuss this.
This mail is about defects in GNU Mach.

People have mentioned several issues in GNU Mach (in particular, there
was one good summary by Olaf, but heck if I can find it in the
archive.  Do you guys never change the subject lines?)  But there was
at least one glaring omission, and one that is in my opinion Given the
Of course it is impossible to give a comprehensive review of all
issues, but at least this one deserves particular mention, because it
is so obvious.  If you ever did I/O-intensive work on the Hurd, you
know what I am talking about.

GNU Mach does not have any resource accounting, and it has very poor
resource scheduling.  Resources that need to be accounted are memory
consumption (and therefore kernel objects like ports) as well as CPU
time.  Resources that need to be scheduled are CPU time, physical
memory and I/O bandwidth.  Mach contains a VMM with an opaque policy
that is extensible via memory objects (look that up in the Mach
documentation).

Unix systems at least allow setting quotas.  Given the design of the
Hurd and Mach, we can't even do that, not to talk about any of the
fancy things.  We can not even reserve the 5 percent disk space (or
whatever it is) for the superuser in ext2fs.  This is because resource
principals (ie, users or processes, depending on the level you are
interested in) are not concepts that are in any way integrated in the
kernel and system design.

The resulting problems are stability issues (Mach panics due to
resource exhaustion) and performance issues (Mach can not make smart
eviction decisions).

Unix and GNU/Linux have pretty good heuristics, which depend on all
relevant components being integrated in a single kernel, sharing data
structures (and thus information).  In a microkernel system, the same
heuristics are not as easy to apply (due to lack of central
authority), so different strategies may be preferable.  This is
difficult, because resources are distributed over many components.  In
a monolithic kernel, for example, all filesystems can share the same
block cache.  In the Hurd, where drivers and filesystems are isolated
components, this is not feasible.

Check out [1] for more details, and possible solutions.
Unfortunately, this is one aspect where there is no precedence: To my
knowledge, there are no user-extensible, multi-server, microkernel
based systems that target a broad range of applications and perform
well under dynamically varying load.  So, this is one of the areas
where we have to experiment, and where success can not be guaranteed.

It is common knowledge that Mach IPC slow.  But what is not common
knowledge is that Mach never got to a point where that matters.
Mach's lack of IPC performance is dominated by its enormous working
set, which eats the CPU caches and cause a large number of TLB misses.
This was analyzed carefully, see [2] and [3].

Device drivers are just an insane amount of work (unless you use para-
or pre-virtualization), but not a conceptual or design challenge.

Thanks,
Marcus

[1] Neal Walfield, Marcus Brinkmann.  Improving Usability via Access
    Decomposition and Policy Refinement Technical report.
    http://www.walfield.org/papers/20070104-walfield-access-decomposition-policy-refinement.pdf

[2] Chen, J. B. and Bershad, B. N. 1993. The impact of operating
    system structure on memory system performance. In Proceedings of
    the Fourteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles
    (Asheville, North Carolina, United States, December 05 - 08,
    1993). SOSP '93. ACM Press, New York, NY, 120-133. DOI=
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/168619.168629

[3] Jochen Liedtke - Micro-Kernels Must And Can Be Small
    Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Workshop on
    Object-Orientation in Operating Systems (IWOOOS) pp. 152--155,
    Seattle, WA, October, 1996
    http://www.l4ka.org/publications/1996/ukernels-must-be-small.ps

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:54:17AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> People have mentioned several issues in GNU Mach (in particular, there
> was one good summary by Olaf, but heck if I can find it in the
> archive.  Do you guys never change the subject lines?)  But there was
> at least one glaring omission, and one that is in my opinion Given the
> Of course it is impossible to give a comprehensive review of all
> issues, but at least this one deserves particular mention, because it
> is so obvious.  If you ever did I/O-intensive work on the Hurd, you
> know what I am talking about.
>
> GNU Mach does not have any resource accounting, and it has very poor
> resource scheduling.

Actually, I did mention it as the very first problem, though only in one
sentence...

Anyways, thanks for the nice summary :-)

BTW, the message you were looking for is

   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2007-09/msg00071.html

Guess how I found it? By searching for "resource" :-)

-antrik-

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:07:36 +0200,
<olafBuddenhagen@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:54:17AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > People have mentioned several issues in GNU Mach (in particular, there
> > was one good summary by Olaf, but heck if I can find it in the
> > archive.  Do you guys never change the subject lines?)  But there was
> > at least one glaring omission, and one that is in my opinion Given the
> > Of course it is impossible to give a comprehensive review of all
> > issues, but at least this one deserves particular mention, because it
> > is so obvious.  If you ever did I/O-intensive work on the Hurd, you
> > know what I am talking about.
> >
> > GNU Mach does not have any resource accounting, and it has very poor
> > resource scheduling.
>
> Actually, I did mention it as the very first problem, though only in one
> sentence...
>
> Anyways, thanks for the nice summary :-)
>
> BTW, the message you were looking for is
>
>    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2007-09/msg00071.html
>
> Guess how I found it? By searching for "resource" :-)

Right.  That's the message.  It mentions resource accounting, but not
resource scheduling.

Thanks,
Marcus