Disco: Running Commodity Operating Systems on Scalable Multiprocessors VMware started as a grad school project out of Stansford university. Many servers were under utilized so Project Disco was born. Yes, VMware was originally called Project Disco. In fact both GOOGLE and Project Disco started out together as grad projects.

1. Disco: Running Commodity
Operating Systems on Scalable
Multiprocessors
Edouard Bugnion, Scott Devine, Mendel Rosenblum,
Stanford University, 1997
Presented by Divya Parekh
1

2. Outline
 Virtualization
 Disco description
 Disco performance
 Discussion
2

3. Virtualization
 “a technique for hiding the physical
characteristics of computing resources from the
way in which other systems, applications, or end
users interact with those resources. This includes
making a single physical resource appear to
function as multiple logical resources; or it can
include making multiple physical resources
appear as a single logical resource”
3

4. Old idea from the 1960s
 IBM VM/370 – A VMM for IBM mainframe
 Multiple OS environments on expensive hardware
 Desirable when few machine around
 Popular research idea in 1960s and 1970s
 Entire conferences on virtual machine monitors
 Hardware/VMM/OS designed together
 Interest died out in the 1980s and 1990s
 Hardware got more cheaper
 Operating systems got more powerful (e.g. multi-user)
4

5. A Return to Virtual Machines
 Disco: Stanford research project (SOSP ’97)
 Run commodity OSes on scalable multiprocessors
 Focus on high-end: NUMA, MIPS, IRIX
 Commercial virtual machines for x86 architecture
 VMware Workstation (now EMC) (1999-)
 Connectix VirtualPC (now Microsoft)
 Research virtual machines for x86 architecture
 Xen (SOSP ’03)
 plex86
 OS-level virtualization
 FreeBSD Jails, User-mode-linux, UMLinux
5

6. Overview
 Virtual Machine
 A fully protected and isolated copy of the underlying
physical machine’s hardware. (definition by IBM)”
 Virtual Machine Monitor
 A thin layer of software that's between the hardware
and the Operating system, virtualizing and managing
all hardware resources.
 Also known as “Hypervisor”
6

7. Classification of Virtual
Machines
7

8. Classification of Virtual
Machines
 Type I
 VMM is implemented directly on the physical hardware.
 VMM performs the scheduling and allocation of the
system’s resources.
 IBM VM/370, Disco, VMware’s ESX Server, Xen
 Type II
 VMMs are built completely on top of a host OS.
 The host OS provides resource allocation and standard
execution environment to each “guest OS.”
 User-mode Linux (UML), UMLinux
8

9. Non-Virtualizable Architectures
 According to Popek and Goldberg,
” an architecture is virtualizable if the set of
sensitive instructions is a subset of the set of
privileged instructions.”
 x86
 Several instructions can read system state in
register CPL 3 without trapping
 MIPS
 KSEG0 bypasses TLB, reads physical memory
directly
9

10. Type I contd..
 Hardware Support for Virtualization
Figure: The hardware support approach to x86 Virtualization
E.g. Intel Vanderpool/VT and AMD-V/SVM
10

11. Type I contd..
 Full Virtualization
Figure : The binary translation approach to x86 Virtualization
E.g. VMware ESX server
11

12. Type I contd..
 Paravirtualization
Figure: The Paravirtualization approach to x86 Virtualization
E.g. Xen
12

13. Type II
 Hosted VM Architecture
E.g. VMware Workstation, Connectix VirtualPC
13

14. Disco : VMM Prototype
 Goals
 Extend modern OS to run efficiently on shared
memory multiprocessors without large changes to
the OS.
 A VMM built to run multiple copies of Silicon
Graphics IRIX operating system on a Stanford
Flash shared memory multiprocessor.
14

15. Problem Description
 Multiprocessor in the market (1990s)
 Innovative Hardware
 Hardware faster than System Software
 Customized OS are late, incompatible, and
possibly bug
 Commodity OS not suited for multiprocessors
 Do not scale cause of lock contention, memory
architecture
 Do not isolate/contain faults
 More Processors  More failures
15

16. Solution to the problems
 Resource-intensive Modification of OS (hard and
time consuming, increase in size, etc)
 Make a Virtual Machine Monitor (software)
between OS and Hardware to resolve the problem
16

17. Two opposite Way for System
Software
 Address these challenges in the operating system:
OS-Intensive
 Hive , Hurricane, Cellular-IRIX, etc
 innovative, single system image
 But large effort.
 Hard-partition machine into independent failure units:
OS-light
 Sun Enterprise10000 machine
 Partial single system image
 Cannot dynamically adapt the partitioning
17

18. Return to Virtual Machine
Monitors
 One Compromise Way between OS-intensive & OS-
light – VMM
 Virtual machine monitors, in combination with
commodity and specialized operating systems, form a
flexible system software solution for these machines
 Disco was introduced to allow trading off between
the costs of performance and development cost.
18

19. Architecture of Disco
19

20. Advantages of this approach
 Scalability
 Flexibility
 Hide NUMA effect
 Fault Containment
 Compatibility with legacy applications
20

21. Challenges Facing Virtual
Machines
 Overheads
 Trap and emulate privileged instructions of
guest OS
 Access to I/O devices
 Replication of memory in each VM
 Resource Management
 Lack of information to make good policy
decisions
 Communication and Sharing
 Stand alone VM’s cannot communicate
21

22. Disco’s Interface
 Processors
 MIPS R10000 processor
 Emulates all instructions, the MMU, trap architecture
 Extension to support common processor operations
 Enabling/disabling interrupts, accessing privileged registers
 Physical memory
 Contiguous, starting at address 0
 I/O devices
 Virtualize devices like I/O, disks, n/w interface exclusive to VM
 Physical devices multiplexed by Disco
 Special abstractions for SCSI disks and network interfaces
 Virtual disks for VMs
 Virtual subnet across all virtual machines
22

23. Disco Implementation
 Multi threaded shared memory program
 Attention to NUMA memory placement, cache aware
data structures and IPC patterns
 Code segment of DISCO copied to each flash
processor – data locality
 Communicate using shared memory
23

24. Virtual CPUs
 Direct Execution
 execution of virtual CPU on real CPU
 Sets the real machine’s registers to the virtual CPU’s
 Jumps to the current PC of the virtual CPU, Direct execution
on the real CPU
 Challenges
 Detection and fast emulation of operations that cannot be
safely exported to the virtual machine  privileged
instructions such as TLB modification and Direct access to
physical memory and I/O devices.
 Maintains data structure for each virtual CPU for trap
emulation
 Scheduler multiplexes virtual CPU on real processor
24

25. Virtual Physical Memory
 Address translation & maintains a physical-to-
machine address (40 bit) mapping.
 Virtual machines use physical addresses
 Software reloaded translation-lookaside buffer (TLB)
of the MIPS processor
 Maintains pmap data structure for each VM –
contains one entry for each physical to virtual
mapping
 pmap also has a back pointer to its virtual address to
help invalidate mappings in the TLB
25

26. Contd..
 Kernel mode references on MIPS processors access
memory and I/O directly - need to re-link OS code
and data to a mapped address space
 MIPS tags each TLB entry with Address space
identifiers (ASID)
 ASIDs are not virtualized - TLB need to be flushed on
VM context switches
 Increased TLB misses in workloads
 Additional Operating system references
 VM context switches
 TLB misses expensive - create 2nd level software -
TLB . Idea similar to cache?
26

27. NUMA Memory management
 Cache misses should be satisfied from local memory
(fast) rather than remote memory (slow)
 Dynamic Page Migration and Replication
 Pages frequently accessed by one node are migrated
 Read-shared pages are replicated among all nodes
 Write-shared are not moved, since maintaining consistency
requires remote access anyway
 Migration and replacement policy is driven by cache-miss-
counting facility provided by the FLASH hardware
27

28. Transparent Page Replication
1. Two different virtual processors of the same virtual machine logically
read-share the same physical page, but each virtual processor accesses
a local copy.
2. memmap tracks which virtual page references each physical page.
Used during TLB shootdown 28

29. Disco Memory Management
29

30. Virtual I/O Devices
 Disco intercepts all device accesses from the virtual
machine and forwards them to the physical devices
 Special device drivers are added to the guest OS
 Disco device provide monitor call interface to pass all
the arguments in single trap
 Single VM accessing a device does not require
virtualizing the I/O – only needs to assure exclusivity
30

31. Copy-on-write Disks
 Intercept DMA requests to translate the physical
addresses into machine addresses.
 Maps machine page as read only to destination
address page of DMA  Sharing machine memory
 Attempts to modify a shared page will result in a
copy-on-write fault handled internally by the monitor.
 Logs are maintained for each VM Modification
 Modification made in main memory
 Non-persistent disks are copy on write shared
 E.g. Kernel text and buffer cache
 E.g. File systems root disks
31

32. Transparent Sharing of Pages
Creates a global buffer cache shared across VM's and reduces
memory foot print of the system
32

33. Virtual Network Interface
 Virtual subnet and network interface use copy on
write mapping to share the read only pages
 Persistent disks can be accessed using standard
system protocol NFS
 Provides a global buffer cache that is transparently
shared by independent VMs
33

34. Transparent sharing of pages
over NFS
1. The monitor’s networking device remaps the data page from the source’s
machine address space to the destination’s.
2. The monitor remaps the data page from the driver’s mbuf to the clients
buffer cache. 34

35. Modifications to the IRIX 5.3
OS
 Minor changes to kernel code and data
segment – specific to MIPS
 Relocate the unmapped segment of the virtual
machine into the mapped supervisor segment of
the processor– Kernel relocation
 Disco drivers are same as original device
drivers of IRIX
 Patched HAL to use memory loads/stores
instead of privileged instructions
35

36. Modifications to the IRIX 5.3
OS
 Added code to HAL to pass hints to monitor
for resource management
 New Monitor calls to MMU to request zeroed
page, unused memory reclamation
 Changed mbuf management to be page-
aligned
 Changed bcopy to use remap (with copy-on-
write)
36

37. SPLASHOS: A specialized OS
 Thin specialized library OS, supported
directly by Disco
 No need for virtual memory subsystem
since they share address space
 Used for the parallel scientific
applications that can span the entire
machine
37

38. Disco: Performance
 Experimental Setup
 Disco targets the FLASH machine not
available that time
 Used SimOS, a machine simulator that
models the hardware of MIPS-based
multiprocessors for the Disco monitor.
 Simulator was too slow to allow long work
loads to be studied
38

39. Disco: Performance
 Workloads
39

40. Disco: Performance
 Execution Overhead
Pmake overhead due to I/O virtualization, others due to TLB mapping
Reduction of kernel time
40
On average virtualization overhead of 3% to 16%

41. Disco: Performance
 Memory Overheads
V: Pmake memory used if there is no sharing
M: Pmake memory used if there is sharing 41

42. Disco: Performance
 Scalability
Partitioning of problem into different VM’s increases scalability.
Kernel synchronization time becomes smaller. 42

43. Disco: Performance
 Dynamic Page Migration and replication
43

44. Conclusion
 Disco VMM hides NUMA-ness from non-
NUMA aware OS
 Disco VMM is low(er) effort
 Moderate overhead due to virtualization
44

45. Discussion
 Was Disco- VMM done rightly?
 Virtual Physical Memory on architectures other
than MIPS
 MIPS TLB is software managed
 Not sure of how well other OS perform on Disco
since IRIX was designed for MIPS
 Not sure how HIVE, Hurricane performs
comparatively
 Performance of long workloads on the system
 Performance of heterogeneous VMs e.g. Pmake
case
45

46. Discussion
Are VMM Microkernels
done right?
46