I just started diving into the world of operating systems and I've learned that processes have a certain memory space they can address which is handled by the operating system. I don't quite understand how can an Operating System written in high level languages like c and c++ obtain this kind of memory management functionality.
You have caught the bug and there is no cure for it :-)
The language you use to write your OS has very little to do with the way your OS operates. Yes, most people use C/C++, but there are others. As for the language, you do need a language that will let you directly communicate with the hardware you plan to manage, assembly being the main choice for this part. However, this is less than 5% of the whole project.
The code that you write must not rely upon any existing operating system. i.e.: you must code all of the function yourself, or call existing libraries. However, these existing libraries must be written so that they don't rely upon anything else.
Once you have a base, you can write your OS in any language you choose, with the minor part in assembly, something a high level language won't allow. In fact, in 64-bit code, some compilers no longer allow inline assembly, so this makes that 5% I mentioned above more like 15%.
Find out what you would like to do and then find out if that can be done in the language of choice. For example, the main operating system components can be written in C, while the actual processor management (interrupts, etc) must be done in assembly. Your boot code must be in assembly as well, at least most of it.
As mentioned in a different post, I have some early example code that you might want to look at. The boot is done in assembly, while the loader code, both Legacy BIOS and EFI, are mostly C code.
To clarify fysnet's answer, the reason you have to use at least a bit of assembly is that you can only explicitly access addressable memory in C/C++ (through pointers), while hardware registers (such as the program counter or stack pointer) often don't have memory addresses. Not only that, but some registers have to be manipulated with CPU architecture-dependent special instructions, and that, too, is only possible in machine language.
I don't quite understand how can an Operating System written in high level languages like c and c++ obtain this kind of memory management functionality.
As described above, depending on the architecture, this could be achieved by having special instructions to manage the MMU, TLB etc. INVLPG is one example of such an instruction in the x86 architecture. Note that having a special instruction requiring kernel privileges is probably the simplest way to implement such a feature in hardware in a secure manner, because then it is simply sufficient to check if the CPU is in kernel mode in order to determine whether the instruction can be executed or not.
Compilers turn high-level languages into asm / machine code for you, so you don't have to write asm yourself. You pick a compiler that handles memory the way you want your OS to; e.g. using the callstack for automatic storage, and not implicitly calling malloc / free (because those won't exist in your kernel).
To link your compiled C/C++ into a kernel, you typically have to know more about the ABI it targets, and the toolchain especially the linker.
The ISO C standard treats implementation details very much as a black box. But real compilers that people use for low level stuff work in well-known ways (i.e. make the expected/useful implementation choices) that kernel programmers depend on, in terms of compiling code and static data into contiguous blocks that can be linked into a single kernel executable that can be loaded all as one chunk.
As for actually managing the system's memory, you write code yourself to do that, with a bit of inline asm where necessary for special instructions like invlpg as other answers mention.
The entry point (where execution starts) will normally be written in pure asm, to set up a callstack with the stack pointer register pointing to it.
And set up virtual memory and so on so code is executable, data is read/write, and read-only data is readable. All of this before jumping to any compiled C code. The first C you jump to is probably more kernel init code, e.g. initializing data structures for an allocator to manage all the memory that isn't already in use by static code/data.
Creating a stack and mapping code/data into memory is the kind of setup that's normally done by an OS when starting a user-space program. The asm emitted by a compiler will assume that code, static data, and the stack are all there already.
Related
I'm developing a simple little toy OS in C and assembly as an experiment, but I'm starting to worry myself with my lack of knowledge on system memory.
I've been able to compile the kernel, run it in Bochs (loaded by GRUB), and have it print "Hello, world!" Now I'm off trying to make a simple memory manager so I can start experimenting with other things.
I found some resources on memory management, but they didn't really have enough code to go off of (as in I understood the concept, but I was at a loss for actually knowing how to implement it).
I tried a few more or less complicated strategies, then settled with a ridiculously simplistic one (just keep an offset in memory and increase it by the size of the allocated object) until the need arises to change. No fragmentation control, protection, or anything, yet.
So I would like to know where I can find more information when I do need a more robust manager. And I'd also like to learn more about paging, segmentation, and other relevant things. So far I haven't dealt with paging at all, but I've seen it mentioned often in OS development sites, so I'm guessing I'll have to deal with it sooner or later.
I've also read about some form of indirect pointers, where an application holds a pointer that is redirected by the memory manager to its real location. That's quite a ways off for me, I'm sure, but it seems important if I ever want to try virtual memory or defragmentation.
And also, where am I supposed to put my memory offset? I had no idea what the best spot was, so I just randomly picked 0x1000, and I'm sure it's going to come back to me later when I overwrite my kernel or something.
I'd also like to know what I should expect performance-wise (e.g. a big-O value for allocation and release) and what a reasonable ratio of memory management structures to actual managed memory would be.
Of course, feel free to answer just a subset of these questions. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
If you don't know about it already, http://wiki.osdev.org/ is a good resource in general, and has multiple articles on memory management. If you're looking for a particular memory allocation algorithm, I'd suggest reading up on the "buddy system" method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_memory_allocation). I think you can probably find an example implementation on the Internet. If you can find a copy in a library, it's also probably worth reading the section of The Art Of Computer Programming dedicated to memory management (Volume 1, Section 2.5).
I don't know where you should put the memory offset (to be honest I've never written a kernel), but one thing that occurred to me which might work is to place a static variable at the end of the kernel, and start allocations after that address. Something like:
(In the memory manager)
extern char endOfKernel;
... (also in the memory manager)
myOffset = &endOfKernel;
... (at the end of the file that gets placed last in the binary)
char endOfKernel;
I guess it goes without saying, but depending on how serious you get about the operating system, you'll probably want some books on operating system design, and if you're in school it wouldn't hurt to take an OS class.
If you're using GCC with LD, you can create a linker script that defines a symbol at the end of the .BSS section (which would give you the complete size of the kernel's memory footprint). Many kernels in fact use this value as a parameter for GRUB's AOUT_KLUDGE header.
See http://wiki.osdev.org/Bare_bones#linker.ld for more details, note the declaration of the ebss symbol in the linker script.
I am getting confuse with all those terms:
ABI, calling convention, and hardware architecture.
The ABI is link with the architecture: x86-64 have a different ABI than the i386.
But then you can also define your own calling convention cdecl...
Well so what is the link between all those concept?
Which one is defining the other one?
Mostly I think I am confuse with ABI. What do you put inside a part from calling convention?
Thanks
This is a vast topic still to give you some pointers:
The ABI (application binary interface) cover the details that need to be specified in order that application can work on a certain system (usually with an operating system). So, to get to examples:
data type sizes (for example C standard gives just minimum requirements for the types. int type should at least as big as short, and short has to be 16 bits.)
layout in memory of structures and bitfields
calling convention (when a function is invoked where it can find it's parameters, which in registers, which on stack etc)
stack frame (what it is present on the stack, useful for a debugger)
system call numbers
others
Basically any detail that needs to be known in order to build a program that runs together with some other components (libraries, OS) can be included in an ABI. Some ABI specify more and some specify less details.
The hardware architecture can be also seen as a specification but of even lower level (it's about hardware not software). The hardware architecture specifies things like the instruction set available, memory hierarchy and how to access peripherals. For one hardware architecture there can be different ABI-s. Also you can have the same ABI for multiple (but usually similar) hardware architecture.
I'm reviewing some code and feel suspicious of the technique being used.
In a linux environment, there are two processes that attach multiple
shared memory segments. The first process periodically loads a new set
of files to be shared, and writes the shared memory id (shmid) into
a location in the "master" shared memory segment. The second process
continually reads this "master" location and uses the shmid to attach
the other shared segments.
On a multi-cpu host, it seems to me it might be implementation dependent
as to what happens if one process tries to read the memory while it's
being written by the other. But perhaps hardware-level bus locking prevents
mangled bits on the wire? It wouldn't matter if the reading process got
a very-soon-to-be-changed value, it would only matter if the read was corrupted
to something that was neither the old value nor the new value. This is an edge case: only 32 bits are being written and read.
Googling for shmat stuff hasn't led me to anything that's definitive in this
area.
I suspect strongly it's not safe or sane, and what I'd really
like is some pointers to articles that describe the problems in detail.
It is legal -- as in the OS won't stop you from doing it.
But is it smart? No, you should have some type of synchronization.
There wouldn't be "mangled bits on the wire". They will come out either as ones or zeros. But there's nothing to say that all your bits will be written out before another process tries to read them. And there are NO guarantees on how fast they'll be written vs how fast they'll be read.
You should always assume there is absolutely NO relationship between the actions of 2 processes (or threads for that matter).
Hardware level bus locking does not happen unless you get it right. It can be harder then expected to make your compiler / library / os / cpu get it right. Synchronization primitives are written to makes sure it happens right.
Locking will make it safe, and it's not that hard to do. So just do it.
#unknown - The question has changed somewhat since my answer was posted. However, the behavior you describe is defiantly platform (hardware, os, library and compiler) dependent.
Without giving the compiler specific instructions, you are actually not guaranteed to have 32 bits written out in one shot. Imagine a situation where the 32 bit word is not aligned on a word boundary. This unaligned access is acceptable on x86, and in the case of the x68, the access is turned into a series of aligned accesses by the cpu.
An interrupt can occurs between those operations. If a context switch happens in the middle, some of the bits are written, some aren't. Bang, You're Dead.
Also, lets think about 16 bit cpus or 64 bit cpus. Both of which are still popular and don't necessarily work the way you think.
So, actually you can have a situation where "some other cpu-core picks up a word sized value 1/2 written to". You write you code as if this type of thing is expected to happen if you are not using synchronization.
Now, there are ways to preform your writes to make sure that you get a whole word written out. Those methods fall under the category of synchronization, and creating synchronization primitives is the type of thing that's best left to the library, compiler, os, and hardware designers. Especially if you are interested in portability (which you should be, even if you never port your code)
The problem's actually worse than some of the people have discussed. Zifre is right that on current x86 CPUs memory writes are atomic, but that is rapidly ceasing to be the case - memory writes are only atomic for a single core - other cores may not see the writes in the same order.
In other words if you do
a = 1;
b = 2;
on CPU 2 you might see location b modified before location 'a' is. Also if you're writing a value that's larger than the native word size (32 bits on an x32 processor) the writes are not atomic - so the high 32 bits of a 64 bit write will hit the bus at a different time from the low 32 bits of the write. This can complicate things immensely.
Use a memory barrier and you'll be ok.
You need locking somewhere. If not at the code level, then at the hardware memory cache and bus.
You are probably OK on a post-PentiumPro Intel CPU. From what I just read, Intel made their later CPUs essentially ignore the LOCK prefix on machine code. Instead the cache coherency protocols make sure that the data is consistent between all CPUs. So if the code writes data that doesn't cross a cache-line boundary, it will work. The order of memory writes that cross cache-lines isn't guaranteed, so multi-word writes are risky.
If you are using anything other than x86 or x86_64 then you are not OK. Many non-Intel CPUs (and perhaps Intel Itanium) gain performance by using explicit cache coherency machine commands, and if you do not use them (via custom ASM code, compiler intrinsics, or libraries) then writes to memory via cache are not guaranteed to ever become visible to another CPU or to occur in any particular order.
So just because something works on your Core2 system doesn't mean that your code is correct. If you want to check portability, try your code also on other SMP architectures like PPC (an older MacPro or a Cell blade) or an Itanium or an IBM Power or ARM. The Alpha was a great CPU for revealing bad SMP code, but I doubt you can find one.
Two processes, two threads, two cpus, two cores all require special attention when sharing data through memory.
This IBM article provides an excellent overview of your options.
Anatomy of Linux synchronization methods
Kernel atomics, spinlocks, and mutexes
by M. Tim Jones (mtj#mtjones.com), Consultant Engineer, Emulex
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-synchronization.html
I actually believe this should be completely safe (but is depends on the exact implementation). Assuming the "master" segment is basically an array, as long as the shmid can be written atomically (if it's 32 bits then probably okay), and the second process is just reading, you should be okay. Locking is only needed when both processes are writing, or the values being written cannot be written atomically. You will never get a corrupted (half written values). Of course, there may be some strange architectures that can't handle this, but on x86/x64 it should be okay (and probably also ARM, PowerPC, and other common architectures).
Read Memory Ordering in Modern Microprocessors, Part I and Part II
They give the background to why this is theoretically unsafe.
Here's a potential race:
Process A (on CPU core A) writes to a new shared memory region
Process A puts that shared memory ID into a shared 32-bit variable (that is 32-bit aligned - any compiler will try to align like this if you let it).
Process B (on CPU core B) reads the variable. Assuming 32-bit size and 32-bit alignment, it shouldn't get garbage in practise.
Process B tries to read from the shared memory region. Now, there is no guarantee that it'll see the data A wrote, because you missed out the memory barrier. (In practise, there probably happened to be memory barriers on CPU B in the library code that maps the shared memory segment; the problem is that process A didn't use a memory barrier).
Also, it's not clear how you can safely free the shared memory region with this design.
With the latest kernel and libc, you can put a pthreads mutex into a shared memory region. (This does need a recent version with NPTL - I'm using Debian 5.0 "lenny" and it works fine). A simple lock around the shared variable would mean you don't have to worry about arcane memory barrier issues.
I can't believe you're asking this. NO it's not safe necessarily. At the very least, this will depend on whether the compiler produces code that will atomically set the shared memory location when you set the shmid.
Now, I don't know Linux, but I suspect that a shmid is 16 to 64 bits. That means it's at least possible that all platforms would have some instruction that could write this value atomically. But you can't depend on the compiler doing this without being asked somehow.
Details of memory implementation are among the most platform-specific things there are!
BTW, it may not matter in your case, but in general, you have to worry about locking, even on a single CPU system. In general, some device could write to the shared memory.
I agree that it might work - so it might be safe, but not sane.
The main question is if this low-level sharing is really needed - I am not an expert on Linux, but I would consider to use for instance a FIFO queue for the master shared memory segment, so that the OS does the locking work for you. Consumer/producers usually need queues for synchronization anyway.
Legal? I suppose. Depends on your "jurisdiction". Safe and sane? Almost certainly not.
Edit: I'll update this with more information.
You might want to take a look at this Wikipedia page; particularly the section on "Coordinating access to resources". In particular, the Wikipedia discussion essentially describes a confidence failure; non-locked access to shared resources can, even for atomic resources, cause a misreporting / misrepresentation of the confidence that an action was done. Essentially, in the time period between checking to see whether or not it CAN modify the resource, the resource gets externally modified, and therefore, the confidence inherent in the conditional check is busted.
I don't believe anybody here has discussed how much of an impact lock contention can have over the bus, especially on bus bandwith constrained systems.
Here is an article about this issue in some depth, they discuss some alternative schedualing algorythems which reduse the overall demand on exclusive access through the bus. Which increases total throughput in some cases over 60% than a naieve scheduler (when considering the cost of an explicit lock prefix instruction or implicit xchg cmpx..). The paper is not the most recent work and not much in the way of real code (dang academic's) but it worth the read and consideration for this problem.
More recent CPU ABI's provide alternative operations than simple lock whatever.
Jeffr, from FreeBSD (author of many internal kernel components), discusses monitor and mwait, 2 instructions added for SSE3, where in a simple test case identified an improvement of 20%. He later postulates;
So this is now the first stage in the
adaptive algorithm, we spin a while,
then sleep at a high power state, and
then sleep at a low power state
depending on load.
...
In most cases we're still idling in
hlt as well, so there should be no
negative effect on power. In fact, it
wastes a lot of time and energy to
enter and exit the idle states so it
might improve power under load by
reducing the total cpu time required.
I wonder what would be the effect of using pause instead of hlt.
From Intel's TBB;
ALIGN 8
PUBLIC __TBB_machine_pause
__TBB_machine_pause:
L1:
dw 090f3H; pause
add ecx,-1
jne L1
ret
end
Art of Assembly also uses syncronization w/o the use of lock prefix or xchg. I haven't read that book in a while and won't speak directly to it's applicability in a user-land protected mode SMP context, but it's worth a look.
Good luck!
If the shmid has some type other than volatile sig_atomic_t then you can be pretty sure that separate threads will get in trouble even on the very same CPU. If the type is volatile sig_atomic_t then you can't be quite as sure, but you still might get lucky because multithreading can do more interleaving than signals can do.
If the shmid crosses cache lines (partly in one cache line and partly in another) then while the writing cpu is writing you sure find a reading cpu reading part of the new value and part of the old value.
This is exactly why instructions like "compare and swap" were invented.
Sounds like you need a Reader-Writer Lock : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers-writer_lock.
The answer is - it's absolutely safe to do reads and writes simultaneously.
It is clear that the shm mechanism
provides bare-bones tools for the
user. All access control must be taken
care of by the programmer. Locking and
synchronization is being kindly
provided by the kernel, this means the
user have less worries about race
conditions. Note that this model
provides only a symmetric way of
sharing data between processes. If a
process wishes to notify another
process that new data has been
inserted to the shared memory, it will
have to use signals, message queues,
pipes, sockets, or other types of IPC.
From Shared Memory in Linux article.
The latest Linux shm implementation just uses copy_to_user and copy_from_user calls, which are synchronised with memory bus internally.
I have to analyze the memory accesses of several programs. What I am looking for is a profiler that allow me to see which one of my programs is more memory intensive insted of computing intensive. I am very interested in the number of accesses to the L1 data cache, L2, and the main memory.
It needs to be for Linux and if it is possible only with command usage. The programming language is c++. If there is any problem with my question, such as I do not understand what you mean or we need more data please comment below.
Thank you.
Update with the solution
I have selected the answer of Crashworks as favourited because is the only one that provided something of what I was looking for. But the question is still open, if you know a better solution please answer.
It is not possible to determine all accesses to memory, since it doesn't make much sense. An access to memory could be executing next instruction (program resides in memory), or when your program reads or write a variable, so your program is almost accessing memory all the time.
What could be more interesting for you could be follow the memory usage of your program (both heap and stack). In this case you can use standard top command.
You could also monitor system calls (i.e. to write to disk or to attach/alloc a shared memory segment). In this case you should use strace command.
A more complete control to do everything would be debugging your program by means of gdb debugger. It lets you control your program such as setting breakpoints to a variable so the program is interrputed whenever it is read or written (maybe this is what you were looking for). On the other hand GDB can be tricky to learn so DDD, which is a gtk graphical frontend will help you starting out with it.
Update: What you are looking for is really low level memory access that it is not available at user level (that is the task of the kernel of the operating system). I am not sure if even L1 cache management is handled transparently by CPU and hidden to kernel.
What is clear is that you need to go as down as kernel level, so KDB, explained here o KDBG, explained here.
Update 2: It seems that Linux kernel does handle CPU cache but only L1 cache. The book Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager explais how memory management of Linux kernel works. This chapter explains some of the guts of L1 cache handling.
If you are running Intel hardware, then VTune for Linux is probably the best and most full-featured tool available to you.
Otherwise, you may be obliged to read the performance-counter MSRs directly, using the perfctr library. I haven't any experience with this on Linux myself, but I found a couple of papers that may help you (assuming you are on x86 -- if you're running PPC, please reply and I can provide more detailed answers):
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/11169/35961/01704008.pdf?temp=x
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~sb3/files/pmc.pdf
In general these tools can't tell you exactly which lines your cache misses occur on, because they work by polling a counter. What you will need to do is poll the "l1 cache miss" counter at the beginning and end of each function you're interested in to see how many misses occur inside that function, and of course you may do so hierarchically. This can be simplified by eg inventing a class that records the start timer on entering scope and computes the delta on leaving scope.
VTune's instrumented mode does this for you automatically across the whole program. The equivalent AMD tool is CodeAnalyst. Valgrind claims to be an open-source cache profiler, but I've never used it myself.
Perhaps cachegrind (part of the valgrind suite) may be suitable.
Do you need something more than the unix command top will provide? This provides cpu usage and memory usage of linux programs in an easy to read presentation format.
If you need something more specific, a profiler perhaps, the software language (java/c++/etc.) will help determine which profiler is best for your situation.
I can understand this requirement for the old PPC RISC systems and even for x86-64, but for the old tried-and-true x86? In this case, the stack needs to be aligned on 4 byte boundaries only. Yes, some of the MMX/SSE instructions require 16byte alignments, but if that is a requirement of the callee, then it should ensure the alignments are correct. Why burden every caller with this extra requirement? This can actually cause some drops in performance because every call-site must manage this requirement. Am I missing something?
Update: After some more investigation into this and some consultation with some internal colleagues, I have some theories about this:
Consistency between the PPC, x86, and x64 version of the OS
It seems that the GCC codegen now consistently does a sub esp,xxx and then "mov"s the data onto the stack rather than simply doing a "push" instruction. This could actually be faster on some hardware.
While this does complicate the call sites a little, there is very little extra overhead when using the default "cdecl" convention where the caller cleans up the stack.
The issue I have with the last item, is that for calling conventions that rely on the callee cleaning the stack, the above requirements really "uglifies" the codegen. For instance, what some compiler decided to implement a faster register-based calling style for its own internal use (ie any code that isn't intended to be called from other languages or sources)? This stack-alignment thing could negate some of the performance gains achieved by passing some parameters in registers.
Update: So far the only real answers have been consistency, but to me that's a bit too easy of an answer. I have well over 20 years experience with the x86 architecture and if consistency, not performance, or something else concrete, is really the reason then I respectfully suggest that is a bit naive for the developers to require it. They're ignoring nearly three decades of tools and support. Especially if they're expecting tools vendors to quickly and easily adapt their tools for their platform (maybe not... it is Apple...) without having to jump through several seemingly unnecessary hoops.
I'll give this topic another day or so then close it...
Related
It’s my stack frame, I don’t care about your stack frame!
From "Intel®64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual", section 4.4.2:
"For best performance, the Streaming SIMD Extensions and Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 require their memory operands to be aligned to 16-byte boundaries. Unaligned data can cause significant performance penalties compared to aligned data."
From Appendix D:
"It is important to ensure that the stack frame is aligned to a 16-byte boundary upon function entry to keep local __m128 data, parameters, and XMM register spill locations aligned throughout a function invocation."
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/248966.pdf
I am not sure as I don't have first hand proof, but I believe the reason is SSE. SSE is much faster if your buffers are already aligned on a 16 bytes boundary (movps vs movups), and any x86 has at least sse2 for mac os x. It can be taken care of by the application user, but the cost is pretty significant. If the overall cost for making it mandatory in the ABI is not too significant, it may worth it. SSE is used quite pervasively in mac os X: accelerate framework, etc...
I believe it's to keep it inline with the x86-64 ABI.
First, note that the 16 bytes alignment is an exception introduced by Apple to the System V IA-32 ABI.
The stack alignment is only needed when calling system functions, because many system libraries are using SSE or Altivec extensions which require the 16 bytes alignment. I found an explicit reference in the libgmalloc MAN page.
You can perfectly handle your stack frame the way you want, but if you try to call a system function with a misaligned stack, you will end up with a misaligned_stack_error message.
Edit:
For the record, you can get rid of alignment problems when compiling with GCC by using the mstack-realign option.
This is an efficiency issue.
Making sure the stack is 16-byte aligned in every function that uses the new SSE instructions adds a lot of overhead for using those instructions, effectively reducing performance.
On the other hand, keeping the stack 16-byte aligned at all times ensures that you can use SSE instructions freely with no performance penalty. There is no cost to this (cost measured in instructions at least). It only involves changing a constant in the prologue of the function.
Wasting stack space is cheap, it is probably the hottest part of the cache.
My guess is that Apple believes everyone just uses XCode (gcc) which aligns the stack for you. So requiring the stack to be aligned so the kernel doesn't have to is just a micro-optimization.
While I cannot really answer your question of WHY, you may find the manuals at the following site useful:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/
Regarding the ABI, have a look especially at:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf
Hope that's useful.
Hmm, didn't OS X ABI also do funny RISC like things like passing small structs in registers?
So that points to the consistency with other platforms theory.
Come to think of it, the FreeBSD syscall api also aligns 64-bit values. (like e.g. lseek and mmap)
In order to maintain consistency in kernel. This allows the same kernel to be booted on multiple architectures without modicfication.
Not sure why no one has considered the possibility of easy portability from legacy PowerPC-based platform?
Read this:
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowLevelABI/100-32-bit_PowerPC_Function_Calling_Conventions/32bitPowerPC.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002438-SW20
And then zoomed into "32-bit PowerPC Function Calling Conventions" and finally this:
"These are the embedding alignment modes available in the 32-bit
PowerPC environment:
Power alignment mode is derived from the alignment rules used by the
IBM XLC compiler for the AIX operating system. It is the default
alignment mode for the PowerPC-architecture version of GCC used on AIX
and Mac OS X. Because this mode is most likely to be compatible
between PowerPC-architecture compilers from different vendors, it’s
typically used with data structures that are shared between different
programs."
In view of the legacy PowerPC-based background of OSX, portability is a major consideration - it dictates following the convention all the way back to AIX's XLC compiler. When you think in terms of the need to make sure all the tools and applications will work together with minimal rework, I think it is important to stick to the same legacy ABI as far as possible.
That gives the philosophy, and reading further is the rule explicitly mentioned ("Prolog and Epilog"):
The called function is responsible for allocating
its own stack frame, making sure to preserve 16-byte alignment in the
stack. This operation is accomplished by a section of code called the
prolog, which the compiler places before the body of the subroutine.
After the body of the subroutine, the compiler places an epilog to
restore the processor to the state it was prior to the subroutine
call.