Subversion Repositories HelenOS-doc

<chapter id="ipc">

  <?dbhtml filename="ipc.html"?>

  subsystem for microkernels, putting high demands on the speed, latency and

  reliability of IPC model and implementation. Although theoretically the use

  of asynchronous messaging system looks promising, it is not often

  implemented because of a problematic implementation of end user

  applications. HelenOS implements a fully asynchronous messaging system but

  synchronous multithreaded environment sufficient to develop complex

  protocols.</para>

    <para>Every message consists of 4 numeric arguments (32-bit and 64-bit on

    the corresponding platforms), from which the first one is considered a

    method number on message receipt and a return value on answer receipt. The

    received message contains identification of the incoming connection, so

    that it can distinguish the messages between different senders. Internally

    the message contains pointer to the originating task and to the source of

    the communication channel. If the message is forwarded, the originating

    task identifies the recipient of the answer, the source channel identifies

    connection in case of a hangup message.</para>

    <para>Every message must be eventually answered. The system keeps track of

    all messages, so that it can answer them with appropriate error code

    should one of the connection parties fail unexpectedly. To limit buffering

    of messages in the kernel, every process is limited in a number of

    asynchronous messages it may have unanswered simultanously. If the limit

    is reached, the kernel refuses to send any other message, until some of

    the active messages are answered.</para>

    <section>

      <title>Low level IPC</title>

      <para>The whole IPC subsystem consists of one-way communication

      channels. Each task has one associated message queue (answerbox). The

      task can open connections (identified by phone id) to other tasks, send

      and forward messages through these connections and answer received

      messages. Every sent message is identified by a unique number, so that

      the response can be later matched against it. The message is sent over

      the phone to the target answerbox. Server application periodically

      checks the answerbox and pulls messages from several queues associated

      with it. After completing the requested action, server sends a reply

      back to the answerbox of the originating task. </para>

      <para>If a need arises, it is possible to <emphasis>forward</emphasis> a

      recevied message throught any of the open phones to another task. This

      mechanism is used e.g. for opening new connections.</para>

    </section>

    <section>

      <title>Services for user application</title>

      <para>On top of this simple protocol the kernel provides special

      services including opening new connection to other tasks, offering

      callback connections and sending and receiving address space areas.

      </para>

    </section>

  </section>

  <section>

    <title>Userspace view</title>

    <para>The conventional design of the asynchronous api seems to produce

    applications with one event loop and several big switch statements.

    However, by intensive utilization of user-space threads, it was possible

    to create an environment that is not necesarilly restricted to this type

    of event-driven programming and allows for more fluent expression of

    application programs. </para>

    <section>

      <title>Single point of entry</title>

      <para>Each tasks is associated with only one answerbox. If a

      multi-threaded application needs to communicate, it must be not only

      able to send a message, but it should be able to retrieve the answer as

      well. If several threads pull messages from task answerbox, it is a

      matter of fortune, which thread receives which message. If a particular

      thread needs to wait for a message answer, an idle

      <emphasis>manager</emphasis> task is found or a new one is created and

      control is transfered to this manager task. The manager tasks pops

      messages from the answerbox and puts them into appropriate queues of

      running tasks. If a task waiting for a message is not running, the

      control is transferred to it. </para>

      <para>Very similar situation arises when a task decides to send a lot of

      messages and reaches kernel limit of asynchronous messages. In such

      situation 2 remedies are available - the userspace liberary can either

      cache the message locally and resend the message when some answers

      arrive, or it can block the thread and let it go on only after the

      message is finally sent to the kernel layer. With one exception HelenOS

      uses the second approach - when the kernel responds that maximum limit

      of asynchronous messages was reached, control is transferred to manager

      thread. The manager thread then handles incoming replies and when space

      is available, sends the message to kernel and resumes application thread

      execution.</para>

      <para>If a kernel notification is received, the servicing procedure is

      run in the context of the manager thread. Although it wouldn't be

      impossible to allow recursive calling, it could potentially lead to an

      explosion of manager threads. Thus, the kernel notification procedures

      are not allowed to wait for a message result, they can only answer

      messages and send new ones without waiting for their results. If the

      kernel limit for outgoing messages is reached, the data is automatically

      cached within the application. This behaviour is enforced automatically

      and the decision making is hidden from developers view.</para>

    </section>

    <section>

      <title>Synchronization problem</title>

      <para>Unfortunately, in the real world is is never so easy. E.g. if a

      server handles incoming requests and as a part of it's response sends

      asynchronous messages, it can be easily prempted and other thread may

      start intervening. This can happen even if the application utilizes only

      1 kernel thread. Classical synchronization using semaphores is not

      possible, as locking on them would block the thread completely and the

      answer couldn't be ever processed. The IPC framework allows a developer

      to specify, that the thread should not be preempted to any other thread

      (except notification handlers) while still being able to queue messages

      belonging to other threads and regain control when the answer arrives.

      </para>

      <para>This mechanism works transparently in multithreaded environment,

      where classical locking mechanism (futexes) should be used. The IPC

      framework ensures that there will always be enough free threads to

      handle the threads requiring correct synchronization and allow the

      application to run more user-space threads inside the kernel threads

      without the danger of locking all kernel threads in futexes.</para>

    </section>

    <section>

      <title>The interface</title>

      <para></para>

    </section>

  </section>

</chapter>