Suppose I have a processor that is running Linux kernel, and the processor is connected with a 128 bit bus to a memory. The memory is addressed as one address gives you the full 128 bits of data through the bus to processor side.
If I do a 32-bit assignment in the user space:
int a = *p
where &p is pointing to an address in the memory. That address will return full 128 bits of data through the bus to the processor.
Is the kernel able to translate this kind of access from user space? What would happen?
Related
Imagine a processor capable of addressing an 8-bit range (I know this is ridiculously small in reality) with a 128 byte RAM. And there is some 8-bit device register mapped to address 100. In order to store a value to it, does the CPU need to store a value at address 100 or does it specifically need to store a value at address 100 within RAM? In pseudo-assembly:
STI 100, value
VS
STI RAM_start+100, value
Usually, the address of a device is specified relative to the start of the address space it lives in.
The datasheet has surely more context and will clarify if the address is relative to something else.
However, before using it you have to translate that address as the CPU would see it.
For example, if your 8-bit address range accessible with the sti instruction is split in half:
0-127 => RAM
128-255 => IO
Because the hardware is wired this way, then, as seen from the CPU, the IO address range starts at 128, so an IO address of x is accessible at 128 + x.
The CPU datasheet usually establishes the convention used to give the addresses of the devices and the memory map of the CPU.
Address spaces can be hierarchical (e.g. as in PCI) or windowed (e.g. like the legacy PCI config space on x86), can have aliases, they may require special instructions or overlaps (e.g. reads to ROM, writes to RAM).
Always refers to the CPU manual/datasheet to understand the CPU memory map and how its address range(s) is (are) routed.
There are the words in linux/Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst
Original x86-64 was limited by 4-level paging to 256 TiB of virtual address space and 64 TiB of physical address space.
I know that the limit of virtual address is 256TB because 2^48 = 256TB. But I don't know why its limit of physical is only 64TB.
Suppose we set the size of each page to 4k. Thus a linear address has 12 bits of offset, 9 bits indicate the index in each four level, which means 512 entries per level. A linear address can cover 512^4 pages, 512^4 * 4k = 256TB of space.
This is my understanding of the calculation of space limit. I'm wondering what's wrong with it.
The x86-64 ISA's physical address space limit is unchanged by PML5, remaining at 52-bit. Real CPUs implement some narrower number of physical address bits, saving bits in cache tags and TLB entries, among other places.
The 64 TiB limit is not imposed by x86-64 itself, but by the way Linux requires more virtual address space than physical for its own convenience and efficiency. See x86_64/mm.txt for the actual layout of Linux's virtual address space on x86-64 with PML4 paging, and note the 64 TB "direct mapping of all physical memory (page_offset_base)"
x86-64 Linux doesn't do HIGHMEM / LOWMEM
Linux can't actually use more than phys mem = 1/4 virtual address space, without nasty HIGHMEM / LOWMEM stuff like in the bad old days of 32-bit kernels on machines with more than 1 GiB of RAM (vm/highmem.html). (With a 3:1 user:kernel split of address space, letting user-space have 3GiB, but with the kernel having to map pages in/out of its own space if not accessing them via the current process's user-space addresses.)
Linus's rant about 32-bit PAE expands on why it's nice for an OS to have enough virtual address space to keep everything mapped, with the usual assertion that people who don't agree with him are morons. :P I tend to agree with him on this, that there are obvious efficiency advantages and that PAE is a huge PITA for the kernel. Probably even moreso on an SMP system.
If anyone had proposed a patch to add highmem support for x86-64 to allow using more than 64 TiB of physical memory with the existing PML4 format, I'd expect Linus would tell them 1995 called and wants its bad idea back. He wouldn't consider merging such a patch unless much RAM became common for servers, but hardware vendors still hadn't provided an extension for wider virtual addresses.
Fortunately that didn't happen: probably no CPU has supported wider than 46-bit phys addrs without supporting PML5. Vendors know that supporting more RAM than mainline Linux can use wouldn't be a selling point. But as the doc said, commercial systems were getting up to a max capacity of 64 TiB.
x86-64's page-table format has room for 52-bit physical addresses
The x86-64 page-table format itself has always had that much room: Why in x86-64 the virtual address are 4 bits shorter than physical (48 bits vs. 52 long)? has diagrams from AMD's manuals. Of course early CPUs had narrower physical addresses so you couldn't for example have a PCIe device put its device memory way up high in physical address space.
Your calculation has nothing to do with physical address limits, which is set by the number of bits in each page-table entry that can be used for that.
In x86-64 (and PAE), the page table format reserves bits up to bit #51 for use as physical-address bits, so OSes must zero them for forward compatibility with future CPUs. The low 12 bits are used for other things, but the physical address is formed by zeroing out the bits other than the phys-address bits in the PTE, so those low 12 bits become the low zero bits in an aligned physical-page address.
x86 terminology note: logical addresses are seg:off, and segment_base + offset gives you a linear address. With paging enabled (as required in long mode), linear addresses are virtual, and are what's used as a search key for the page tables (effectively a radix tree cached by the TLB).
Your calculation is just correctly reiterating the 256 TiB size of virtual address space, based on 4-level page tables with 4k pages. That's how much memory can be simultaneously mapped with PML4.
A physical page has to be the same size as a virtual page, and in x86-64 yes that's 4 KiB. (Or 2M largepage or 1G hugepage).
Fun fact: the x86-64 page-table-entry format is the same as PAE, so modern CPUs can also access large amounts of memory 32-bit mode. But of course not map it all at once. It's probably not a coincidence that AMD chose to use an existing well-designed format when making AMD64, so their CPUs would only need two different modes for hardware page-table walker: legacy x86 with 4-byte PTEs (10 bits per level) and PAE/AMD64 with 8-byte PTEs (9 bits per level).
My cpuinfo file says that my processor has address sizes as 39 bits physical, and 48 bits virtual. This has got me into some confusion.
Mine is a 64 bit machine. From what I understand, this is the word size of my machine. That is, it will fetch data from memory in chunks of 8 bytes. Also, a 64 bit machine means that the CPU can address 2^64 byte addressable locations, which is a lot. So, manufacturers cut-down some of these lines.
Here are the questions:
If the CPU only generates logical addresses, then what is the need for having 39 bits physical address size.
When we say that the CPU can access 2^64 bytes, do we mean Physical memory or the virtual memory?
I read somewhere that a 64 bit machine has size of its registers as 64 bits, and a 32 bit machine has 32 bit registers. Is this the case?
I think I have confused myself terribly, and need some help. Any other information on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
I can see why people are puzzled considering the number of academic questions posed on this board that suggest there is some mathematical relationship among address sizes.
The processor word size, physical address size, logical address size, and bus size are all independent to some degrees.
If the CPU only generates logical addresses, then what is the need for having 39 bits physical address size.
The CPU translates logical addresses to physical addresses.
When we say that the CPU can access 2^64 bytes, do we mean Physical memory or the virtual memory?
I could be either.
I read somewhere that a 64 bit machine has size of its registers as 64 bits, and a 32 bit machine has 32 bit registers. Is this the case?
Generally this is true for general registers but special purpose registers may be a different size (e.g., floating point, control registers)
There have been many occasions when a processor does not use all available bits for the generation of addresses.
In ancient times, the old MC68000 had 32 bit registers but only a 24 bit address bus.
For the i5 consider that a 64 bit address would control a mind boggling memory space of 17,179,869,184 gigabytes. A stupendously huge number even compared to the storage at Google or the NSA or the planet Earth.
The i5 designers, trim this insane number down to a more manageable 512 gigabytes of physical address space and 262,144 gigabytes of virtual address space.
How do you determine addressability based on address space? How do you determine the size of the address bus based on the addressability? Ex. The addressability of a machine is 32 bits, what is the size of the address bus?
The address bus connects the CPU with the main memory. So if the address bus has 32 bits, the max size of the main memory is 2^32 bytes, i.e. 4 GB.
The address bus transfers a physical address, and thus the physical address space in this example is 4 GB.
However the CPU generates virtual addresses, and the virtual addresses are the virtual address space. The virtual addresses have to be mapped to physical addresses by a memory management unit.
In principle, one can map a small virtual address space to a large physical one (as done earlier e.g. in the PDP11 computers), but nowadays mostly a larger virtual address space is mapped to a smaller physical one, e.g. from a 64-bit CPU with a 2^64 byte virtual address space to a physical memory with a 32-bit address bus, which is thus 4 GB large.
So if you have a primitive system without memory management, and you want that all addresses that the GPU can generate are existing main memory addresses, then you address bus must have the same number of bits as the CPU uses for addressing, e.g. 32 bits.
But in a real system the virtual CPU addresses are essentially independent from the physical memory addresses.
I heard that the 8086 has 16-bit registers which allow it to only address 64K of memory. Yet it is still able to address 1MB of memory which would require 20-bit registers. It does this by using another register to to hold another 16 bits, and then adds the value in the 16-bit registers to the value in this other register to be able to generate numbers which can address up to 1MB of memory. Is that right?
Why is it done this way? It seems that there are 32-bit registers, which is more than sufficient to address 1MB of memory.
Actually this has nothing to do with number of registers. Its the size of the register which matters. A 16 bit register can hold up to 2^16 values so it can address 64K bytes of memory.
To address 1M, you need 20 bits (2^20 = 1M), so you need to use another register for the the additional 4 bits.
The segment registers in an 8086 are also sixteen bits wide. However, the segment number is shifted left by four bits before being added to the base address. This gives you the 20 bits.
the 8088 (and by extension, 8086) is instruction compatible with its ancestor, the 8008, including the way it uses its registers and handles memory addressing. the 8008 was a purely 16 bit architecture, which really couldn't address more than 64K of ram. At the time the 8008 was created, that was adequate for most of its intended uses, but by the time the 8088 was being designed, it was clear that more was needed.
Instead of making a new way for addressing more ram, intel chose to keep the 8088 as similar as possible to the 8008, and that included using 16 bit addressing. To allow newer programs to take advantage of more ram, intel devised a scheme using some additional registers that were not present on the 8008 that would be combined with the normal registers. these "segment" registers would not affect programs that were targeted at the 8008; they just wouldn't use those extra registers, and would only 'see' 16 addres bits, the 64k of ram. Applications targeting the newer 8088 could instead 'see' 20 address bits, which gave them access to 1MB of ram
I heard that the 8086 has 16 registers which allow it to only address 64K of memory. Yet it is still able to address 1MB of memory which would require 20 registers.
You're misunderstanding the number of registers and the registers' width. 8086 has eight 16-bit "general purpose" registers (that can be used for addressing) along with four segment registers. 16-bit addressing means that it can only support 216 B = 64 KB of memory. By getting 4 more bits from the segment registers we'll have 20 bits that can be used to address a total of 24*64KB = 1MB of memory
Why is it done this way? It seems that there are 32 registers, which is more than sufficient to address 1MB of memory.
As said, the 8086 doesn't have 32 registers. Even x86-64 nowadays don't have 32 general purpose registers. And the number of registers isn't relevant to how much memory a machine can address. Only the address bus width determines the amount of addressable memory
At the time of 8086, memory is extremely expensive and 640 KB is an enormous amount that people didn't think that would be reached in the near future. Even with a lot of money one may not be able to get that large amount of RAM. So there's no need to use the full 32-bit address
Besides, it's not easy to produce a 32-bit CPU with the contemporary technology. Even 64-bit CPUs today aren't designed to use all 64-bit address lines
Why can't OS use entire 64-bits for addressing? Why only the 48-bits?
Why do x86-64 systems have only a 48 bit virtual address space?
It'll takes more wires, registers, silicons... and much more human effort to design, debug... a CPU with wider address space. With the limited transistor size of the technology in the 70s-80s that may not even come into reality.
8086 doesn't have any 32-bit integer registers; that came years later in 386 which had a much higher transistor budget.
8086's segmentation design made sense for a 16-bit-only CPU that wanted to be able to use 20-bit linear addresses.
Segment registers could have been only 8-bit or something with a larger shift, but apparently there are some advantages to fine-grained segmentation where a segment start address can be any 16-byte aligned linear address. (A linear address is computed from (seg << 4) + off.)