Extensibility, Safety and Performance in the SPIN Operating System Brian Bershad, Stefan Savage,...

Extensibility, Safety and Performance in the SPIN Operating System

Brian Bershad, Stefan Savage, Przemyslaw Pardyak, Emin Gun Sirer,

David Becker, Marc Fiuczynski, Craig Chambers, Susan Eggers

Presented By

Ninad Palsule

Motivation

General purpose OS Specialized OS Application needs a

resource control– Ex. DBMS

Hard: Support specialization in general purpose OS

Kernel

User

DBMS

Data page buffer Log page

12

Storage

Why it is hard?

Ref: Fig from presentation prepared by Author from http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/

SPIN

Design Goals– Extensibility

Incremental changes

– Safety Correctness

– Good performance Efficiency

SPIN

Approach– Language and compiler support– Runtime facility

Techniques– Co-location

Requires dynamic linking Provides low cost communication

– Enforced modularity Modula – 3 Compiler enforce interface between modules Can’t access memory or execute privileged instruction unless access given through interface Modularity enforced by the compiler enables modules

– Logical protection domains Dynamic linker resolve code in different logical protection domain

– Dynamic call binding System Events

Extensibility

Extension model

Property of Extension– Easy to apply– Transparent– Efficient

Dynamically linked to Kernel address space Provide controlled communication between

Extension and Base system Extensions defined in terms of Event and Handler

Extension model

Event raised Dispatcher call guards and

handlers Evaluating guards If guard true then call

handler Safety issues

– Type checking Access Control Denial of service

– Runaway handlers– Too many handlers

Ref: Fig from paper 2 in Reference

Example: System call

Ref: From presentation prepared by Author of paper 2.

Programmer’s view

Ref: From presentation prepared by Author of paper 2.

SPIN structure

Ref: Fig from presentation prepared by Author from http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/

Application: Video system components

Ref: Fig from Author presentation from http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/

Safety

Modula – 3 support for SPIN

Type Safety– Array index checks (static & dynamic)– Pointer-safe casting

“VIEW” used to safe cast – Size of input should match with typed structure– Alignment should match

Isolation of untrusted code– Terminating untrusted code

“EPHEMERAL” procedure tag for killable procedures– Isolating errors in untrusted code

Implicit exception for unhandled exception Enforce modularity

– Interface, Modules and procedures Automatic storage management

Protection model

Control set of operations on resource Conventional OS uses Address space as a

protection model SPIN

– Capabilities– Protection domain

Capabilities

Implemented using pointers Pointer is a reference to block of memory whose

type is declared within interface. Externalized Reference before sending to user

space Unforgeable reference to resources (system object

and interfaces) Extension reference resources for which they have

valid access Interfaces protected to allow different extensions to

have different views on services

Protection domains

Set of accessible names available for execution context

Naming and protection interface at level of language– Name ‘c’ is a instance of type ‘Console.T’

Domains can be intersecting or disjoint

Domain interface

Export/Import domain at run-time

Fig from paper [2]

Core Services

Core Services

Manages Memory and Processor resources Export interfaces for Extensions Extensible Memory management

– Three components: Physical storage, Naming(virtual address) and Translation

Extensible thread management– Strands – No state, share processor– Application provide its own thread package– Scheduler runs in Kernel– Checkpoint and Resume events– Block / Unblock Events

Performance

Methodology

Comparative study– SPIN V0.4– DEC OSF/1 V2.1 (Monolithic OS)– Mach 3.0 (Micro-kernel)

Hardware– DEC Alpha 133 MHz AXP 3000/400 workstation, 64 MB

RAM, 512 KB unified external cache

Tests– Micro benchmarks– End-to-end performance– Networking

Micro benchmark – Protected communication

NULL procedure call Protected in-kernel :

SPIN’s cross domain procedure call

Cross Address space call: SPIN’s extension

Protected communication overhead in microseconds

Micro benchmark: Thread Management overhead

Network Latency and Bandwidth

End-to-end performance

Conclusion

It is possible to achieve all three in single OS (Extensibility, Safety and Performance)

Extend easily with dynamic linking Use of language and compile with Event facility for

safety Communication cost is low Issues

– Dispatcher performance?– Does it solve all Safety issues? How do we test

correctness?– Language restrictions, changes in Modula - 3

References

1. Extensibility, Safety and Performance in the SPIN Operating System Brian Bershad, Stefan Savage, Przemyslaw Pardyak, Emin Gun Sirer, David Becker, Marc Fiuczynski, Craig Chambers, Susan Eggers

2. Dynamic Binding for an Extensible System, Przemyslaw Pardyak and Brian Bershad

3. Safe Dynamic Linking in an Extensible Operating System, Emin Sirer, Marc Fiucynski, Przemyslaw Pardyak, Brian Bershad

4. Language Support For Extensible Operating System, Wilson Hsieh, Marc Fiuczynski, Charles Garrett, Stefan Savage, David Becker, and Brian Bershad

5. SPIN Operating System web site: Documentation and source code http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/