$FreeBSD: head/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/vm-design/article.xml 39632
2012-10-01 11:56:00Z gabor $
The title is really just a fancy way of saying that I am going to attempt to describe the whole VM enchilada, hopefully in a way that everyone can follow. For the last year I have concentrated on a number of major kernel subsystems within FreeBSD, with the VM and Swap subsystems being the most interesting and NFS being “a necessary chore”. I rewrote only small portions of the code. In the VM arena the only major rewrite I have done is to the swap subsystem. Most of my work was cleanup and maintenance, with only moderate code rewriting and no major algorithmic adjustments within the VM subsystem. The bulk of the VM subsystem's theoretical base remains unchanged and a lot of the credit for the modernization effort in the last few years belongs to John Dyson and David Greenman. Not being a historian like Kirk I will not attempt to tag all the various features with peoples names, since I will invariably get it wrong.
Before moving along to the actual design let's spend a little time on the necessity of maintaining and modernizing any long-living codebase. In the programming world, algorithms tend to be more important than code and it is precisely due to BSD's academic roots that a great deal of attention was paid to algorithm design from the beginning. More attention paid to the design generally leads to a clean and flexible codebase that can be fairly easily modified, extended, or replaced over time. While BSD is considered an “old” operating system by some people, those of us who work on it tend to view it more as a “mature” codebase which has various components modified, extended, or replaced with modern code. It has evolved, and FreeBSD is at the bleeding edge no matter how old some of the code might be. This is an important distinction to make and one that is unfortunately lost to many people. The biggest error a programmer can make is to not learn from history, and this is precisely the error that many other modern operating systems have made. Windows NT® is the best example of this, and the consequences have been dire. Linux also makes this mistake to some degree—enough that we BSD folk can make small jokes about it every once in a while, anyway. Linux's problem is simply one of a lack of experience and history to compare ideas against, a problem that is easily and rapidly being addressed by the Linux community in the same way it has been addressed in the BSD community—by continuous code development. The Windows NT folk, on the other hand, repeatedly make the same mistakes solved by UNIX® decades ago and then spend years fixing them. Over and over again. They have a severe case of “not designed here” and “we are always right because our marketing department says so”. I have little tolerance for anyone who cannot learn from history.
Much of the apparent complexity of the FreeBSD design, especially in the VM/Swap subsystem, is a direct result of having to solve serious performance issues that occur under various conditions. These issues are not due to bad algorithmic design but instead rise from environmental factors. In any direct comparison between platforms, these issues become most apparent when system resources begin to get stressed. As I describe FreeBSD's VM/Swap subsystem the reader should always keep two points in mind:
The most important aspect of performance design is what is known as “Optimizing the Critical Path”. It is often the case that performance optimizations add a little bloat to the code in order to make the critical path perform better.
A solid, generalized design outperforms a heavily-optimized design over the long run. While a generalized design may end up being slower than an heavily-optimized design when they are first implemented, the generalized design tends to be easier to adapt to changing conditions and the heavily-optimized design winds up having to be thrown away.
Any codebase that will survive and be maintainable for years must therefore be designed properly from the beginning even if it costs some performance. Twenty years ago people were still arguing that programming in assembly was better than programming in a high-level language because it produced code that was ten times as fast. Today, the fallibility of that argument is obvious — as are the parallels to algorithmic design and code generalization.