Chapter: Embedded Systems Design : Real-time operating systems


Linux started as a personal interest project by Linus Torvalds at the University of Helsinki in Finland to produce an operating system that looked and felt like UNIX.



Linux started as a personal interest project by Linus Torvalds at the University of Helsinki in Finland to produce an operating system that looked and felt like UNIX. It was based on work that he had done in porting Minix , an operating system that had been shipped with a textbook that described its inner workings.


After much discussion via user groups on the Internet, the first version of Linux saw the light of day on the 5 October, 1991. While limited in its abilities — it could run the GNU bash shell and gcc compiler but not much else — it prompted a lot of interest. Inspired by Linus Torvalds’ efforts, a band of enthusiasts started to create the range of software that Linux offers today. While this was progressing, the kernel development continued until some 18 months later, when it reached version 1.0. Since then it has been developed further with many ports for different processors and platforms. Because of the large amount of software available for it, it has become a very popular operating system and one that is often thought off as a candidate for embedded systems.


However it is based on the interfaces and design of the UNIX operating system which for various reasons is not consid-ered suitable for embedded design. If this is the case, how is it that Linux is now forging ahead in the embedded world. To answer this question, it is important to understand how it came about and was developed. That means starting with the inspiration behind Linux, the UNIX operating system.


Origins and beginnings


UNIX was first described in an article published by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie of Bell Research Labs in 1974, but its origins owe much to work carried out by a consortium formed in the late 1960s, by Bell Telephones, General Electric and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to develop MULTICS — a MULTIplexed Information and Computing Service. Their goal was to move away from the then traditional method of users submitting work in as punched cards to be run in batches — and receiving their results several hours (or days!) later. Each piece of work (or job) would be run sequentially — and this combination of lack of response and the punched card medium led to many frustrations — as anyone who has used such machines can con-firm. A single mistake during the laborious task of producing punched cards could stop the job from running and the only help available to identify the problem was often a ‘syntax error’ mes-sage. Imagine how long it could take to debug a simple program if it took the computer several hours to generate each such mes-sage!


The idea behind MULTICS was to generate software which would allow a large number of users simultaneous access to the computer. These users would also be able to work interactively and on-line in a way similar to that experienced by a personal computer user today. This was a fairly revolutionary concept. Computers were very expensive and fragile machines that re-quired specially trained staff to keep other users away from and protect their machine. However, the project was not as successful as had been hoped and Bell dropped out in 1969. The experienced gained in the project was turned to other uses when Thompson and Ritchie designed a computer filing system on the only ma-chine available — a Digital Equipment PDP-7 mini computer.


While this was happening, work continued on the GE645 computer used in the MULTICS project. To improve performance and save costs (processing time was very expensive), they wrote a very simple operating system for the PDP-7 to enable it to run a space travel game. This operating system, which was essentially the first version of UNIX, included a new filing system and a few utilities.


The PDP-7 processor was better than nothing — but the new software really cried out for a better, faster machine. The problem faced by Thompson and Ritchie was one still faced by many today. It centred on how to persuade management to part with the cash to buy a new computer, such as the newer Digital Equipment Company’s PDP-11. Their technique was to interest the Bell legal department in the UNIX system for text processing and use this to justify the expenditure. The ploy was successful and UNIX development moved along.


The next development was that of the C programming language, which started out as an attempt to develop a FORTRAN language compiler. Initially, a programming language called B which was developed, which was then modified into C. The development of C was crucial to the rapid movement of UNIX from a niche within a research environment to the outside world.


UNIX was rewritten in C in 1972 — a major departure for an operating system. To maximise the performance of the computers then available, operating systems were usually written in a low level assembly language that directly controlled the processor. This had several effects. It meant that each computer had its own operating system, which was unique, and this made application programs hardware dependent. Although the applications may have been written in a high level language (such as FORTRAN or BASIC) which could run on many different machines, differences in the hardware and operating systems would frequently prevent these applications from being moved between systems. As a result, many man hours were spent porting software from one computer to another and work around this computer equivalent of the Tower of Babel.


By rewriting UNIX in C, the painstaking work of porting system software to other computers was greatly reduced and it became feasible to contemplate a common operating system run-ning on many different computers. The benefit of this to users was a common interface and way of working, and to software develop-ers, an easy way to move applications from one machine to another. In retrospect, this decision was extremely far sighted.


The success of the legal text processing system, coupled with a concern within Bell about being tied to a number of computer vendors with incompatible software and hardware, resulted in the idea of using the in-house UNIX system as a standard environment. The biggest advantage of this was that only one set of applications needed to be written for use on many different computers. As UNIX was now written in a high level language, it was a lot more feasible to port it to different hardware platforms. Instead of rewriting every application for each compu-ter, only the UNIX operating system would need to be written for each machine — a lot less work. This combination of factors was too good an opportunity to miss. In September 1973, a UNIX Development Support group was formed for the first UNIX applications, which updated telephone directory information and intercepted calls to changed numbers.


The next piece of serendipity in UNIX development was the result of a piece of legislation passed in 1956. This prevented AT&T, who had taken over Bell Telephone, from selling computer products. However, the papers that Thompson and Ritchie had published on UNIX had created a quite a demand for it in aca-demic circles. UNIX was distributed to universities and research institutions at virtually no cost on an ‘as is’ basis — with no support. This was not a problem and, if anything, provided a motivating challenge. By 1977, over 500 sites were running UNIX.


By making UNIX available to the academic world in this way, AT&T had inadvertently discovered a superb way of mar-keting the product. As low cost computers became available through the advent of the mini computer (and, later, the micro-processor), academics quickly ported UNIX and moved the rap-idly expanding applications from one machine to another. Often, an engineer’s first experience of computing was on UNIX systems with applications only available on UNIX. This experience then transferred into industry when the engineer completed training. AT&T had thus developed a very large sales force promoting its products — without having to pay them! A situation that many marketing and sales groups in other companies would have given their right arms for. Fortunately for AT&T, it had started to licence and protect its intellectual property rights without restricting the flow into the academic world. Again, this was either far sighted or simply common sense, because they had to wait until 1984 and more legislation changes before entering the computer market and starting to reap the financial rewards from UNIX.


The disadvantage of this low key promotion was the ap-pearance of a large number of enhanced variants of UNIX which had improved appeal — at the expense of some compatibility. The issue of compatibility at this point was less of an issue than today.

UNIX was provided with no support and its devotees had to be able to support it and its applications from day one. This self sufficiency meant that it was relatively easy to overcome the slight variations between UNIX implementations. After all, most of the application software was written and maintained by the users who thus had total control over its destiny. This is not the case for commercial software, where hard economic factors make the decision for or against porting an application between systems.


With the advent of microprocessors like the Motorola MC68000 family, the Intel 8086 and the Zilog Z8000, and the ability to produce mini computer performance and facilities with low cost silicon, UNIX found itself a low cost hardware platform. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, many UNIX systems ap-peared using one of three UNIX variants.


XENIX was a UNIX clone produced by Microsoft in 1979 and ported to all three of the above processors. It faded into the background with the advent of MS-DOS, albeit temporarily. Sev-eral of the AT&T variants were combined into System III, which, with the addition of several features, was later to become System V. The third variant came from work carried at out at Berkeley (University of California), which produced the BSD versions destined to became a standard for the Digital Equipment Compa-ny’s VAX computers and throughout the academic world.


Of the three versions, AT&T were the first to announce that they would maintain upward compatibility and start the lengthy process of defining standards for the development of future versions. This development has culminated in AT&T System V release 4, which has effectively brought the System V, XENIX and BSD UNIX environments together.


What distinguishes UNIX from other operating systems is its wealth of application software and its determination to keep the user away from the physical system resources. There are many compilers, editors, text processors, compiler construction aids and communication packages supplied with the basic release. In addi-tion, packages from complete CAD and system modelling to integrated business office suites are available.


The problem with UNIX was that it was quite an expensive operating system to buy. The hardware in many cases was specific to a manufacturer and this restricted the use of UNIX. What was needed was an alternative source of UNIX. With the advent of Linux, this is exactly what happened.


Inside Linux


The key to understanding Linux as an operating system is to understand UNIX and then to grasp how much the operating system protects the user from the hardware it is running on. It is very difficult to know exactly where the memory is in the system, what a disk drive is called and other such information. Many facets of the Linux environment are logical in nature, in that they can be seen and used by the user — but their actual location, structure and functionality is hidden. If a user wants to run a 20 Mbyte program on a system, UNIX will use its virtual memory capability to make the machine behave logically like one with enough memory — even though the system may only have 4 Mbytes of RAM installed. The user can access data files without knowing if they are stored on a floppy or a hard disk — or even on another machine many miles away and connected via a network. UNIX uses its facilities to present a logical picture to the user while hiding the more physical aspects from view.


The Linux file system


Linux like UNIX has a hierarchical filing system which contains all the data files, programs, commands and special files that allow access to the physical computer system. The files are usually grouped into directories and subdirectories. The file sys-tem starts with a root directory and divides it into subdirectories. At each level, there can be subdirectories that continue the file system into further levels and files that contain data. A directory can contain both directories and files. If no directories are present, the file system will stop at that level for that path.


A file name describes its location in the hierarchy by the path taken to locate it, starting at the top and working down. This type of structure is frequently referred to as a tree structure which, if turned upside down, resembles a tree by starting at a single root directory — the trunk — and branching out.

The full name, or path name, for the file steve located at the bottom of the tree would be /etc/usr/steve. The / character at the beginning is the symbol used for the starting point and is known as root or the root directory. Subsequent use within the path name indicates that the preceding file name is a directory and that the path has followed down that route. The / character is in the opposite direction to that used in MS-DOS systems: a tongue in cheek way to remember which slash to use is that MS-DOS is backward compared with Linux — and thus its slash character points backward.

The system revolves around its file structure and all physi-cal resources are also accessed as files. Even commands exist as files. The organisation is similar to that used within MS-DOS — but the original idea came from UNIX, and not the other way around. One important difference is that with MS-DOS, the top of the structure is always referred to by the name of the hard disk or storage medium. Accessing an MS-DOS root directory C:\ imme-diately tells you that drive C holds the data. Similarly, A:\ and B:\ normally refer to floppy disks. With UNIX, such direct references to hardware do not exist. A directory is simply present and rarely gives any clues as to its physical location or nature. It may be a floppy disk, a hard disk or a disk on another system that is connected via a network.


All Linux files are typically one of four types, although it can be extremely difficult to know which type they are without referring to the system documentation. A regular file can contain any kind of data and is not restricted in size. A special file repre-sents a physical I/O device, such as a terminal. Directories are files that hold lists of files rather than actual data and named pipes are similar to regular files but restricted in size.


The physical file system


The physical file system consists of mass storage devices, such as floppy and hard disks, which are allocated to parts of the logical file system. The logical file system (previously described) can be implemented on a system with two hard disks by allocating the bin directory and the filing subsystem below it to hard disk no. 2 — while the rest of the file system is allocated to hard disk no. 1. To store data on hard disk 2, files are created somewhere in the bin directory. This is the logical way of accessing mass storage. How-ever, all physical input and output can be accessed by sending data to special files which are normally located in the /dev directory. This organisation of files is shown.

This can create a great deal of confusion: one method of sending data to a hard disk is by allocating it to part of the logical file system and simply creating data files. The second method involves sending the data directly to the special /dev file that represents the physical disk drive — which itself exists in the logical file system!


This conflict can be explained by an analogy using book-cases. A library contains many bookcases where many books are stored. The library represents the logical file system and the bookcases the physical mass storage. Books represent the data files. Data can be stored within the file system by putting books into the bookcases. Books can be grouped by subject on shelves within the bookcases — these represent directories and subdirec-tories. When used normally, the bookcases are effectively trans-parent and the books are located or stored depending on their subject matter. However, there may be times when more storage is needed or new subjects created and whole bookcases are moved or cleared. In these cases, the books are referred to using the bookcase as the reference — rather than subject matter.


The same can occur within Linux. Normally, access is via the file system, but there are times when it is easier to access the data as complete physical units rather than lots of files and directories. Hard disk copying and the allocation of part of the logical file system to a floppy disk are two examples of when access via the special /dev file is used. Needless to say, accessing hard disks directly without using the file system can be extremely dangerous: the data is simply accessed by block numbers without any reference to the type of data that it contains. It is all too easy to destroy the file system and the information it contains. Another important difference between the access methods is that direct access can be performed at any time and with the mass storage in any state. To access data via the logical file system, data structures must be present to control the file structure. If these are not present, logical access is impossible.


Building the file system


When a Linux system is powered up, its system software boots the Linux kernel into existence. One of the first jobs per-formed is the allocation of mass storage to the logical file system. This process is called mounting and its reverse, the de-allocation of mass storage, is called unmounting. The mount command specifies the special file which represents the physical storage and allocates it to a target directory. When mount is complete, the file system on the physical storage media has been added to the logical file system. If the disk does not have a filing system, i.e. the data control structures previously mentioned do not exist, the disk cannot be successfully mounted.


The mount and umount commands can be used to access removable media, such as floppy disks, via the logical file system.

The disk is mounted, the data accessed as needed and the disk unmounted before physically removing it. All that is needed for this access to take place is the name of the special device file and the target directory. The target directory normally used is /mnt but the special device file name varies from system to system. The mount facility is not normally available to end users for reasons that will become apparent later in this chapter.


The file system


Files are stored by allocating sufficient blocks of storage to contain all the data they contain. The minimum amount of storage that can be allocated is determined by the block size, which can range from 512 bytes to 8 kbytes in more recent systems. The larger block size reduces the amount of control data that is needed — but can increase the storage wastage. A file with 1,025 bytes would need two 1,024 byte blocks to contain it, leaving 1,023 bytes allocated and therefore not accessible to store other files. End of file markers indicate where the file actually ends within a block. Blocks are controlled and allocated by a superblock, which con-tains an inode allocated to each file, directory, subdirectory or special file. The inode describes the file and where it is located.

Using the library and book analogy, the superblock repre-sents the library catalogue which is used to determine the size and location of each book. Each book has an entry — an inode — within the catalogue.


The example inode below, which is taken from a Motorola System V/68 computer, contains information describing the file type, status flags and access permissions (read, write and execute) for the three classifications of users that may need the file: the owner who created the file originally, any member of the owner’s group and, finally, anyone else. The owner and groups are iden-tified by their identity numbers, which are included in the inode. The total file size is followed by 13 address fields, which point to the blocks that have been used to store the file data. The first ten point directly to a block, while the other three point indirectly to other blocks to effectively increase the number of blocks that can be allocated and ultimately the file size. This concept of direct and indirect pointers is analogous to a library catalogue system: the inode represents the reference card for each book or file. It would have sufficient space to describe exactly where the book was located, but if the entry referred to a collection, the original card may not be able to describe all the books and overflow cards would be needed. The inode uses indirect addresses to point to other data structures and solve the overflow problem.

Why go to these lengths when all that is needed is the location of the starting block and storage of the data in consecutive blocks? This method reduces the amount of data needed to locate a complete file, irrespective of the number of blocks the file uses. However, it does rely on the blocks being available in contiguous groups, where the blocks are consecutively ordered. This does not cause a problem when the operating system is first used, and all the files are usually stored in sequence, but as files are created and deleted, the free blocks become fragmented and intermingled with existing files. Such a fragmented disk may have 20 Mbytes of storage free, but would be unable to create files greater than the largest contiguous number of blocks — which could be 10 or 20 times smaller. There is little more frustrating than being told there is insufficient storage available when the same system reports that there are many megabytes free. Linux is more efficient in using the mass storage — at the expense of a more complicated directory control structure. For most users, this complexity is hidden from view and is not relevant to their use of the file system.


So what actually happens when a user wants a file or executes a command? In both cases, the mechanism is very similar. The operating system takes the file or command name and looks it up within the superblock to discover the inode reference number. This is used to locate the inode itself and check the access permissions before allowing the process to continue. If permission is granted, the inode block addresses are used to locate the data blocks stored on hard disk. These blocks are put into memory to reconstitute the file or command program. If the data file represents a command, control is then passed to it, and the command executed.


The time taken to perform file access is inevitably depend-ant on the speed of the hard disk and the time it takes to access each individual block. If the blocks are consecutive or close to each other, the total access time is much quicker than if they are dispersed throughout the disk. Linux also uses mass storage as a replacement for system memory by using memory management techniques and its system response is therefore highly dependant on hard disk performance. UNIX uses two techniques to help improve performance: partitioning and data caching.


Study Material, Lecturing Notes, Assignment, Reference, Wiki description explanation, brief detail
Embedded Systems Design : Real-time operating systems : Linux |

Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant

Copyright © 2018-2024; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.