I was wondering whether there is any reasonably portable way to take existing, unshared heap memory and to convert it into shared memory. The usage case is a block of memory which is too large for me to want to copy it unnecessarily (i.e. into a new shared memory segment) and which is allocated by routines out of my control. The primary target is *nix/POSIX, but I would also be interested to know if it can be done on Windows.
Many *nixe have Plan-9's procfs which allows to open read a process's memory by inspecting /proc/{pid}/mem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procfs
You tell the other process your pid, size and the base address and it can simply read the data (or mmap the region in its own address space)
EDIT:: Apparently you can't open /proc/{pid}/mem without a prior ptrace(), so this is basically worthless.
Under most *nixes, ptrace(2) allows to attach to a process and read its memory.
The ptrace method does not work on OSX, you need more magic there:
http://www.voidzone.org/readprocessmemory-and-writeprocessmemory-on-os-x/
What you need under Windows is the function ReadProcessMemory
.
Googling "What is ReadProcessMemory for $OSNAME" seems to return comprehensive result sets.
You can try using mmap() with MAP_FIXED flag and address of your unshared memory (allocated from heap). However, if you provide mmap() with own pointer then it is constrained to be aligned and sized according to the size of memory page (may be requested by sysconf()) since mapping is only available for the whole page.
Related
When the operating system loads Program onto the main memory , it , along with the stack and heap memory , also attaches the static data along with it. I googled about what is present in the static data which said it contained the global variables and static variables. But I am confused as both of these are already present in the text file of the program then why do we add them seperately?
The data in the executable is often referred as the data segment. The CPU doesn't interact with the hard-disk but only with RAM. The data segment must thus be loaded in RAM before the CPU can access it. The file of the executable is not really a text file. It is an executable so it has a different extension. Text files often refer to an actual file with a .txt extension.
With that said, you also asked another question not long ago (If the amount of stack memory provided to a program is fixed then why does it grow downwards in the process architecture? Or am I getting it wrong?) so I will try to give some insight for both of these in this same answer.
I don't know much about caching and low level inner CPU workings but, today mostly, the CPU doesn't even operate on RAM directly. It will load a bunch of RAM chunks into the cache and make operations on them and keep RAM-cache consistency by implementing complex mechanisms. The OS also has its role to play in RAM-cache consistency but, like I said, I am far from an expert here. Other than that, caching is mostly transparent to the OS. The CPU handles it and the OS simply provides instructions to the CPU which executes them.
Today, you have paging used by most OS and implemented on most CPU architectures. With paging, every process sees a full contiguous virtual address space. The virtual address space is accessed contiguously and the hardware MMU translates those addresses to physical ones automatically by crossing the page tables. The OS is responsible to make sure the page tables are consistent and the MMU does the rest of the job (for more info read: What is paging exactly? OSDEV). If you understand paging well, things become much clearer.
For a process, there is mostly 3 types of memory. There is the stack (often called automatic storage), the heap and the static/global data. I will attempt to give precision on all of these to give a global picture.
The stack is given a maximum size when the process begins. The OS handles that and creates the page tables and places the proper address in the stack pointer register so that stack accesses reach the proper region of physical memory. The stack is automatic storage which means that it isn't handled manually by the high level programmer. For example, in C/C++, the stack is managed by the compiler which, at the entry of a function, will create a stack frame and place offsets from the stack base pointer in the instructions. Every local variable (within a function) will be accessed with a relative negative offset from the stack base pointer. What the compiler needs to do is to create a stack frame of the proper size so that there will be enough place for all local variables of a particular function (for more info on the stack see: Each program allocates a fixed stack size? Who defines the amount of stack memory for each application running?).
For the heap, the OS reserves a very big amount of virtual memory. Today, virtual memory is very big (2^48 bytes or more). The amount of heap available for each process is often only limited by the amount of physical memory available to back virtual memory allocations. For example, a process could use malloc() to allocate 4KB of memory in C. The OS will be called with a system call by the libc library which is an implementation of the C standard library. The OS will then reserve a page of the virtual memory available for the heap and change the page tables so that accessing that portion of virtual memory will translate to somewhere in RAM (probably somewhere another process wasn't already using).
The static/global data are simply placed in the executable in the data segment. The data segment is loaded in the virtual memory alongside the text segment. The text segment will thus be able to access this data often using RIP-relative addressing.
I've always known that main memory caches data read from files on disk, but I have trouble reconciling this with the typical memory usage of a program, as shown in this diagram:
If I use fread or fgetl on a very large file 2010Stats.txt, on which segment of the above diagram does memory cache data from disk?
That's the address-space of your process. Each process has its own virtual memory address-space. Unless you mmap a file, its data only appears in your process's memory when copied there by a read system call or equivalent. (C stdio / iostream functions will be implemented on top of system calls like that.)
The disk-cache is managed by the OS kernel, which has to keep track of how the physical pages of memory are used, as well the virtual address mappings of every process.
I am developing a Linux kernel driver on 3.4. The purpose of this driver is to provide a mmap interface to Userspace from a buffer allocated in an other kernel module likely using kzalloc() (more details below). The pointer provided by mmap must point to the first address of this buffer.
I get the physical address from virt_to_phys(). I give this address right shifted by PAGE_SHIFT to remap_pfn_range() in my mmap fops call.
It is working for now but it looks to me that I am not doing the things properly because nothing ensure me that my buffer is at the top of the page (correct me if I am wrong). Maybe mmap()ing is not the right solution? I have already read the chapter 15 of LDD3 but maybe I am missing something?
Details:
The buffer is in fact a shared memory region allocated by the remoteproc module. This region is used within an asymetric multiprocessing design (OMAP4). I can get this buffer thanks to the rproc_da_to_va() call. That is why there is no way to use something like get_free_pages().
Regards
Kev
Yes, you're correct: there is no guarantee that the allocated memory is at the beginning of a page. And no simple way for you to both guarantee that and to make it truly shared memory.
Obviously you could (a) copy the data from the kzalloc'd address to a newly allocated page and insert that into the mmap'ing process' virtual address space, but then it's not shared with the original datum created by the other kernel module.
You could also (b) map the actual page being allocated by the other module into the process' memory map but it's not guaranteed to be on a page boundary and you'd also be sharing whatever other kernel data happened to reside in that page (which is both a security issue and a potential source of kernel data corruption by the user-space process into which you're sharing the page).
I suppose you could (c) modify the memory manager to return every piece of allocated data at the beginning of a page. This would work, but then every time a driver wants to allocate 12 bytes for some small structure, it will in fact be allocating 4K bytes (or whatever your page size is). That's going to waste a huge amount of memory.
There is simply no way to trick the processor into making the memory appear to be at two different offsets within a page. It's not physically possible.
Your best bet is probably to (d) modify the other driver to allocate the specific bits of data that you want to make shared in a way that ensures alignment on a page boundary (i.e. something you write to replace kzalloc).
In answer to a question about mapping non-contiguous blocks of files into contiguous memory, here, it was suggested by one respondent that I should use VirtualAllocEx() with MEM_RESERVE in order to establish a 'safe' value for the final (lpBaseAddress) parameter for MapViewOfFileEx().
Further investigation revealed that this approach causes MapViewofFileEx() to fail with error 487: "Attempt to access invalid address." The MSDN page says:
"No other memory allocation can take place in the region that is used for mapping, including the use of the VirtualAlloc or VirtualAllocEx function to reserve memory."
While the documentation might be considered ambiguous with respect to valid sequences of calls, experimentation suggests that it is not valid to reserve memory for MapViewOfFileEx() using VirtualAllocEx().
On the web, I've found examples with hard-coded values - example:
#define BASE_MEM (VOID*)0x01000000
...
hMap = MapViewOfFileEx( hFile, FILE_MAP_WRITE, 0, 0, 0, BASE_MEM );
To me, this seems inadequate and unreliable... It is far from clear to me why this address is safe, or how many blocks can be safely be mapped there. It seems even more shaky given that I need my solution to work in the context of other allocations... and that I need my source to compile and work in both 32 and 64 bit contexts.
What I'd like to know is if there is any way to reliably reserve a pool of address space in order that - subsequently - it can be reliably used by MapViewOfFileEx to map blocks to explicit memory addresses.
You almost got to the solution by yourself but fell short of the last small step.
As you figured, use VirtualAlloc (with MEM_RESERVE) to find room in your address space, but after that (and before MapViewOfFileEx) use VirtualFree (with MEM_RELEASE). Now the address range will be free again. Then use the same memory address (returned by VirtualAlloc) with MapViewOfFileEx.
What you are trying to do is impossible.
From the MapViewOfFileEx docs, the pointer you supply is "A pointer to the memory address in the calling process address space where mapping begins. This must be a multiple of the system's memory allocation granularity, or the function fails."
The memory allocation granularity is 64K, so you cannot map disparate 4K pages from the file into adjacent 4K pages in virtual memory.
If you provide a base address, the function will try to map your file at that address. If it cannot use that base address (because something is already using all or part of the requested memory region), then the call will fail.
For most applications, there's no real point trying to fix the address yourself. If you're a sophisticated database process and you're trying to carefully manage your own memory layout on a machine with a known configuration for efficiency reasons, then it might be reasonable. But you'd have to be prepared for failure.
In 64-bit processes, the virtual address space is pretty wide open, so it might be possible to select a base address with some certainty, but I don't think I'd bother.
From MSDN:
While it is possible to specify an address that is safe now (not used by the operating system), there is no guarantee that the address will remain safe over time. Therefore, it is better to let the operating system choose the address.
I believe "over time" refers to future versions of the OS and whatever run-time libraries you're using (e.g., for memory allocation), which might take a different approach to memory layout.
Also:
If the lpBaseAddress parameter specifies a base offset, the function succeeds if the specified memory region is not already in use by the calling process. The system does not ensure that the same memory region is available for the memory mapped file in other 32-bit processes.
So basically, your instinct is right: specifying a base address is not reliable. You can try, but you must be prepared for failure.
So to directly answer your question:
What I'd like to know is if there is any way to reliably reserve a pool of address space in order that - subsequently - it can be reliably used by MapViewOfFileEx to map blocks to explicit memory addresses.
No, there isn't. Not without applying many constraints on the runtime environment (e.g., limiting to a specific version of the OS, setting base addresses for all of your DLLs, disallowing DLL injection, etc.).
I use boost::interprocess::managed_shared_memory to load a data structure in shared memory. I need to pin the shared memory segment into physical memory (for example similar to system call mlock for mapped files).
In linux, sooner or later my data structure gets swapped out of physical memory. In my case this incurs a forbidding cost for the next process accessing the structure, after it has been swapped out.
Is there any way to pin shared memory into physical memory? I am interested in any solution, even if it means that I cannot use boost::interprocess.
Using basic_managed_xsi_shared_memory (apparently available since boost 1.46), you can access the underlying shmid (from the get_shmid member) which should allow you to control the shmid using shmctl. With shmctl you can prevent the swapping of shared memory pages by applying the SHM_LOCK command to the shmid.
Other types of locking (which you refer to as 'pinning'), such as locking memory mapped files into memory, can be realized by supplying return values obtained from mapped_region's get_address and get_size member functions to the mlock command.