I have trouble understanding how in say a 32-bit computer byte addressing is achieved:
Is the ram itself byte addressable meaning the first byte has address 0 and the second 1 etc? In this case, wouldn't is take 4 read cycles to read a 32-bit word and waste the width of the data bus?
Or does the ram consist of 32-bit words meaning address 0 points to the first 4 bytes and address 2 points to bytes 5 to 8? In this case I would expect the ram interface to make byte addressing possible (from the cpu's point of view)
Think of RAM as 8 bit wide structure with N entries. N is often the size quoted when referring to memory (256 MB - 256M entries, 2GB - 2G entries etc, B is for bytes). When you access this memory, the smallest unit you can address is one of these entries which is 8 bits (1 byte). Since you can only access it at byte level, we call it byte addressable memory.
Now coming to your question about accessing this memory, we do not just access a byte. Most of the time, memory accesses are sent through caches which are there to reduce memory access latency. Caches store data at a higher granularity than a byte or word, normally it is multiple of words. In doing so, caches explore a property called "locality". Locality means, there is a high chance that we either access this data item or a near by data item very soon. So fetching not just the byte, but all the adjacent bytes is not a waste. Think of it as an investment for future, saves you multiple data fetches that you would have done otherwise.
Memory addresses in RAM start with 0th address and they are accessed using the registers with capacity of 8 bit register or 32 bit registers. Based on these registers the value from specific address is accessed by the CPU. If you really need to understand how it works, you will need to run couple of programs using Assembly language to navigate in the physical memory by reading the values directly using registers and register move commands.
Related
My question is related to memory segmentation in 8086. I learnt that,
8086 has a 20 bit address bus. And so it can address 2^20 different addresses. Which means it has an memory size of 2^20, i.e, 1MB.
I have a few doubts:
What I understand from the fact that 8086 has a 20 bit address bus is that it could have 2^20 different combinations of 0s and 1s, each of which represents one physical address. What I don't understand is that how does 2^20 different address locations mean 1 MB of addressable memory? How is total number of different addresses locations related to memory size (in Megabytes)?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the 16 bit segment registers in 8086 hold the starting address of the different segments in the memory (Code, Stack, Data, Extra).My question is, aren't the addresses in memory of 20 bits? Then how can the 16 bit register hold 20 bit addresses? If it contains the upper 16 bit of the 20 bit address, how does the processor make out to which exact address location it has to point?
P.S: I am a beginner is micro-processors and total reliant on self study, so kindly excuse if my questions seem a bit silly.
Thanks in advance.
For this question, its important to remember there is a different between the number of possible memory addresses and the amount of actual memory (RAM) installed in the system. For the 8086, memory addresses are 20-bits long as you note, so that means there are 2^20 possible memory addresses (which is exactly 1 MiB in size since 1 MiB is 1024 or 2^10 KiB and 1 KiB is 1024 or 2^10 Bytes). This does NOT mean the system has 1 MiB worth of RAM necessarily, it very likely has less but the most addresses the 8086 could possibly address is 1 MiB; so if nothing but RAM was in the address space, the most RAM it could possibly have is 1 MiB. Frequently, you might have gaps in the address space not filled with anything, some of the address space is used for ROM or other peripherals. So, that size of the address space is 1 MiB but that does not mean there is 1 MiB of RAM/memory in the system.
Correct, the segment registers are all 16-bits for the 8086. A memory address is created by combining the appropriate segment register with the argument (the argument being the result of whatever the addressing mode being used by the instruction) by adding the argument to the segment register's value shifted by 4 bits. So, if for example the ss is 0x1111, sp is at 0x2222 and you preform a push ax instruction, the 20-bit address to which the value is pushed is (ss << 4) + sp or 0x11110 + 0x02222 = 0x13332. More information can be found on Wikipedia under the Real Mode section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_memory_segmentation
I was reading the dinosaur book on Operating System about memory management. I assume this is one of the best books but there's something about paging written in the book which I don't get.
The book says, "A 32-bit CPU uses 32-bit addresses, meaning that a given process space can only be 2^32 bytes (4 TB ). Therefore, paging lets us use physical memory that is larger than what can be addressed by the CPU’s address pointer length."
I don't quite get this part because if the CPU can only refer to 2^32 different physical addresses, if there were 2^32+1 physical addresses, the last address won't be able to be reached by the CPU. So how can paging help with this?
Also, earlier the book says "Frequently, on a 32-bit CPU , each page-table entry is 4 bytes long, but that size can vary as well. A 32-bit entry can point to one of 2^32 physical page frames. If frame size is 4 KB (2^12 ), then a system with 4-byte entries can address 2^44 bytes (or 16 TB ) of physical memory."
I don't see how that is even possible in ideal/theoretical situations, cuz as I understand it, part of the virtual address will refer to an entry of the page table while the other part of the virtual address will refer to the off-set of that particular type in that page. So in the above-mentioned situation put forward by the book, even if the CPU could point to 2^32 different page entries, it won't be able to read any particular byte within that page cuz it doesn't specify the office.
Maybe I've misunderstood the book or there is some part that I missed out. I much appreciate your help! Thanks a lot!
It sounds like you need to burn your book. It's useless.
"[P]aging lets us use physical memory that is larger than what can be addressed by the CPU’s address pointer length" is complete nonsense (unless the book is assigning two different meanings to the term "paging," in which it is still useless).
Let's start with logical addressing. A logical address is composed of a page selector and and offset into the page. Some number (P) of bits will be assigned to the page selector and the remained will be assigned to the offset. If pages are 2^9 bits, there are 23 bits in the page selector and 9 bits for the byte offset within the page.
Note that the 9/23 pick are arbitrary on my part. Most systems these days use larger pages but these are values have been used in the past.
The 23 bits in the page selector are indices into the process page table.
The size of entries in the page table are going to be a power of 2 (and I have never seen one less than 4). For our purposes let's say that each entry is 8-bytes long.
The bits in the page table entry are divided between those that index physical page frames and control bits. let's make the arbitrary choice that 32 bits index page frames and 32 bits are used for control.
That means the system can theoretically MANAGE 2^32 pages that are 2^9 bytes large or a total of 2^41 bytes. If we were to increase the page size from 2^9 to 2^20, the system could theoretically MANAGE 2^52 (32+20) bytes of memory.
Note that each process can still only ACCESS 2^32 bytes. But in my 9-bit page system, 2^9 processes could each access 2^32 pages simultaneously on a system with 2^41 physical bytes of memory (ignoring the need for a shared system address space in this gross oversimplification).
Note that if I change my page table to 32-bits and assign 9 of those bits to control and and 23 to page frame selection, the system can only MANAGE 2^32 bytes of memory (and that was more common than managing greater than 2^32 bytes).
You quote: "Frequently, on a 32-bit CPU , each page-table entry is 4 bytes long, but that size can vary as well. A 32-bit entry can point to one of 2^32 physical page frames. If frame size is 4 KB (2^12 ), then a system with 4-byte entries can address 2^44 bytes (or 16 TB ) of physical memory."
This is theoretical BS. A system that used all 32 bites of the page table entry as an index to page frames could not function. There would have to be some control bits in the page table.
The quotes you are taking from this book are highly misleading. Few (any?) 32-bit processors could even access 2^32 bytes of memory due to address line limitations.
While it is possible that the use of logical pages could allow a processor to manage more memory that the logical address size suggests, that was not the purpose of managing memory in pages.
The purpose of paging—which in its normal and customary usage refers to the movement of virtual memory pages between physical page frames and secondary storage—is to allow processes to access more virtual memory than there was physical memory on the system.
There is an additional system of memory management that is (thankfully) dying out: segments. Segments also provided a means for systems to manage more physical memory than the logical address space would allow.
I was wondering how exactly does a CPU request data in a computer. In a 32 Bits architecture, I thought that a computer would put a destination on the address bus and would receive 4 Bytes on the data bus. I recently read on the memory alignment in computer and it confused me. I read that the CPU has to read two times the memory to access a not multiple 4 address. Why is so? The address bus lets it access not multiple 4 address.
The address bus itself, even in a 32-bit architecture, is usually not 32 bits in size. E.g. the Pentium's address bus was 29 bits. Given that it has a full 32-bit range, in the Pentium's case that means each slot in memory is eight bytes wide. So reading a value that straddles two of those slots means two reads rather than one, and alignment prevents that from happening.
Other processors (including other implementations of the 32-bit Intel architecture) have different memory access word sizes but the point is generic.
Can someone give me a short and plausible explanation for why the compiler adds padding to data structures in order to align its members? I know that it's done so that the CPU can access the data more efficiently, but I don't understand why this is so.
And if this is only CPU related, why is a double 4 byte aligned in Linux and 8 byte aligned in Windows?
Alignment helps the CPU fetch data from memory in an efficient manner: less cache miss/flush, less bus transactions etc.
Some memory types (e.g. RDRAM, DRAM etc.) need to be accessed in a structured manner (aligned "words" and in "burst transactions" i.e. many words at one time) in order to yield efficient results. This is due to many things amongst which:
setup time: time it takes for the memory devices to access the memory locations
bus arbitration overhead i.e. many devices might want access to the memory device
"Padding" is used to correct the alignment of data structures in order to optimize transfer efficiency.
In other words, accessing a "mis-aligned" structure will yield lower overall performance. A good example of such pitfall: suppose a data structure is mis-aligned and requires the CPU/Memory Controller to perform 2 bus transactions (instead of 1) in order to fetch the said structure, the performance is thus consequently lower.
the CPU fetches data from memory in groups of 4 bytes (it actualy depends on the hardware its 8 or other values for some types of hardware, but lets stick with 4 to keep it simple),
all is well if the data begins in an address which is dividable by 4, the CPU goes to the memory address and loads the data.
now suppose the data begins in an address not dividable by 4 say for the sake of simplicity at address 1, the CPU must take data from address 0 and then apply some algorithm to dump the byte at the 0 address , to gain access to the actual data at byte 1. this takes time and therefore lowers preformance. so it is much more efficient to have all data addresses aligned.
A cache line is a basic unit of caching. Typically it is 16-64 bytes or more.
Pentium IV: 64 bytes; Pentium Pro/II: 32 bytes; Pentium I: 32 bytes; 486: 16 bytes.
myrandomreader:
; ...
; ten instructions to generate next pseudo-random
; address in ESI from previous address
; ...
MOV EAX, DS:[ESI] ; X
LOOP myrandomreader
For memory read straddling two cachelines:
(for L1 cache miss) the processor must wait for the whole of cache line 1 to be read from L2->L1 into the processor before it can request the second cache line, causing a short execution stall
(for L2 cache miss) the processor must wait for two burst reads from L3 cache (if present) or main memory to complete rather than one
Processor stalls
A random 4 byte read will straddle a cacheline boundary about 5% of the time for 64 byte cachelines, 10% for 32 byte ones and 20% for 16 byte ones.
There may be additional execution overheads for some instructions on misaligned data even if it is within a cacheline. This is talked about on the Intel website for some SSE instructions.
If you are defining the structures yourself, it may make sense to look at listing all the <32bit data fields together in a struct so that padding overhead is reduced or alternatively review whether it is better to turn packing on or off for a particular structure.
On MIPS and many other platforms you don't get the choice and must align - kernel exception if you don't!!
Alignment may also matter extra specially to you if you are doing I/O on the bus or using atomic operations such as atomic increment/decrement or if you wish to be able to port your code to non-Intel.
On Intel only (!) code, a common practice is to define one set of packed structures for network and disk, and another padded set for in-memory and to have routines to convert data between these formats (also consider "endianness" for the disk and network formats).
In addition to jldupont's answer, some architectures have load and store instructions (those used to read/write to and from memory) that only operate on word aligned boundaries - so, to load a non-aligned word from memory would take two load instructions, a shift instruction, and then a mask instruction - much less efficient!
I understand what it means to access memory such that it is aligned but I don’t understand why this is necessary. For instance, why can I access a single byte from an address 0x…1 but I cannot access a half word (two bytes) from the same address.
Again, I understand that if you have an address A and an object of size s that the access is aligned if A mod s = 0. But I just don’t understand why this is important at the hardware level.
Hardware is complex; this is a simplified explanation.
A typical modern computer might have a 32-bit data bus. This means that any fetch that the CPU needs to do will fetch all 32 bits of a particular memory address. Since the data bus can't fetch anything smaller than 32 bits, the lowest two address bits aren't even used on the address bus, so it's as if RAM is organised into a sequence of 32-bit words instead of 8-bit bytes.
When the CPU does a fetch for a single byte, the read cycle on the bus will fetch 32 bits and then the CPU will discard 24 of those bits, loading the remaining 8 bits into whatever register. If the CPU wants to fetch a 32 bit value that is not aligned on a 32-bit boundary, it has several general choices:
execute two separate read cycles on the bus to load the appropriate parts of the data word and reassemble them
read the 32-bit word at the address determined by throwing away the low two bits of the address
read some unexpected combination of bytes assembled into a 32-bit word, probably not the one you wanted
throw an exception
Various CPUs I have worked with have taken all four of those paths. In general, for maximum compatibility it is safest to align all n-bit reads to an n-bit boundary. However, you can certainly take shortcuts if you are sure that your software will run on some particular CPU family with known unaligned read behaviour. And even if unaligned reads are possible (such as on x86 family CPUs), they will be slower.
The computer always reads in some fixed size chunks which are aligned.
So, if you don't align your data in memory, you will have to probably read more than once.
Example
word size is 8 bytes
your structure is also 8 bytes
if you align it, you'll have to read one chunk
if you don't align it, you'll have to read two chunks
So, it's basically to speed up.
The reason for all alignment rules are the various widths of the Cache Lines (Instruction-Cache do have 16 Byte lines for the Core2 Architecture, and the Data-Cache do have 64-Byte Lines for L1 and 128-Byte Lines for L2).
So if you want to store/load data that crosses a Cahce-Line Boundary you need to load and store both Cache-lines, which hits the performance.
So you just don't do it because of the performance hit, its that simple.
Try reading a serial port. The data is 8 bits wide.
Nice hardware designers ensure it lies on a least significant byte of the word.
If you have a C structure that has elements not word aligned ( from backwards compatibility or conservation of memory say )
then the address of any byte within the structure is not word aligned.