I think I have a fairly basic MIPS question but am still getting my head wrapped around how addressing works in mips.
My question is: What is the address of the register $t0?
I am looking at the following memory allocation diagram from the MIPs "green sheet"
I had two ideas:
The register $t0 has a register number of 8 so I'm wondering if it would have an address of 0x0000 0008 and be in the reserved portion of the memory block.
Or would it fall in the Static Data Section and have an address of 0x1000 0008?
I know that MARS and different assemblers might start the addressing differently as described in this related question:
How is the la instruction translated in MIPS?
I trying to understand what the "base" address is for register $t0 so I have a better understanding how offsets(base) work.
For example what the address of 8($t0) would be
Thanks for the help!
feature
Registers
Memory
count
very few
vast
speed
fast
slow
Named
yes
no
Addressable
no
yes
There are typically 32 or fewer registers for programmers to use. On a 32-bit machine we can address 2^32 different bytes of memory.
Registers are fast, while memory is slow, potentially taking dozens of cycles depending on cache features & conditions.
On a load-store machine, registers can be used directly in most instructions (by naming them in the machine code instruction), whereas memory access requires a separate load or store instruction. Computational instructions on such a machine typically allows naming up to 3 registers (e.g. target, source1, source2). Memory operands have to be brought into registers for computation (and sometimes moved back to memory).
Register can be named in instructions, but they do not have addresses and cannot be indexed. On MIPS no register can be found as alias at some address in memory. It is hard to put even a smallish array (e.g. array of 10) in registers because they have no addresses and cannot be indexed. Memory has numerical addresses, so we can rely on storing arrays and objects in a predictable pattern of addresses. (Memory generally doesn't have names, just addresses; however, there are usually special memory locations for working with I/O various devices, and, as you note memory is partitioned into sections that have start (and ending) addresses.)
To be clear, memory-based aliases have been designed into some processors of the past. The HP/1000 (circa 70s'-80's), for example, had 2 registers (A & B), and they had aliases at memory locations 0 and 1, respectively. However, this aliasing of CPU registers to memory is generally no longer done on modern processors.
For example what the address of 8($t0) would be
8($t0) refers to the memory address of (the contents of register $t0) + 8. With proper usage, the program fragment would $t0 would be using $t0 as a pointer, which is some variable that holds a memory address.
Related
I worked with megafunctions to generate 32bit data memory in the fpga.but the output was addressed 32bit (4 bytes) at time , how to do 1 byte addressing ?
i have Altera Cyclone IV ep4ce6e22c8.
I'm designing a 32bit CPU in fpga ,
Nowadays every CPU address bus works in bytes. Thus to access your 32-bit wide memory you should NOT connect the LS 2 address bits. You can use the A[1:0] address bits to select a byte (or half word using A[1] only) from the memory when your read.
You still will need four byte write enable signals. This allows you to write word, half-words or bytes.
Have a look at existing CPU buses or existing connection standards like AHB or AXI.
Post edit:
but reading address 0001 , i get 0x05060708 but the desired value is 0x02030405.
What you are trying to do is read a word from a non-aligned address. There is no existing 32-bit wide memory that supports that. I suggest you have a look at how a 32-bit wide memory works.
The old Motorola 68020 architecture supported that. It requires a special memory controller which first reads the data from address 0 and then from address 4 and re-combines the data into a new 32-bit word.
With the cost of memory dropping and reducing CPU cycles becoming more important, no modern CPU supports that. They throw an exception: non-aligned memory access.
You have several choices:
Build a special memory controller which supports unaligned accesses.
Adjust your expectations.
I would go for the latter. In general it is based on the wrong idea how a memory works. As consolidation: You are not the first person on this website who thinks that is how you read words from memory.
I was reading about memory architecture and I got a bit confused with the paging and segmentation. I read that modern OS systems use only paging to manage memory access but looking at a disassembled codes I can see segments like "ds" and "fs". Does it means that the OS (saw that on Windows and Linux) is using both segmentation and paging or is it just mapping all the segments into the same pages (making segments irrelevant) ?
Ok, based on the book Modern Operating Systems 3rd Edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum and the materials form Open Security Training (opensecuritytraining.info), i manage to understand the segmentation and paging and the answer for my question is:
Concepts:
1.1.Segmentation:
Segmentation is the division of the memory into pieces (sections) called segments. These segments are independents from each other, have variable sizes and may grow as needed.
1.2. Virtual Memory:
A virtual memory is an abstraction of real memory. This means that it maps a virtual address (used by programs) into a physical address (used by the hardware). If a program wants to access the memory 2000 (mov eax, 2000), the virtual address (2000) will be converted into the real physical address ( for example 1422) and then the program will access the memory 1422 thinking that he’s accessing the memory 2000.
So, if virtual memory is being used by the system, programs no longer access real memory directly, instead, they used the correspondent virtual memory.
1.3. Paging:
Paging is a virtual memory management scheme. As explained before, it maps a virtual address into a physical address. Paging divides the virtual memory into pieces called “pages” and also divides the physical memory into pieces called “frame pages”. A page can be bound to one or more frame page ( keep in mind that a page can map different frame pages, but just one at the time)
Advantages and Disadvantages
2.1. Segmentation:
The main advantage of using segmentation is to divide the memory into different linear address spaces. With this programs can have an address space for his code, other for the stack, another for dynamic variables (heap) etc. The disadvantage for segmentation is the fragmentation of the memory.
Consider this example – One portion of the memory is divided into 4 segments sequentially allocated -> seg1(in use) --- seg2(in use)--- seg3(in use)---seg4(in use). Now if we free the memory from seg2, we will have -> seg1(in use) --- seg2(FREE)--- seg3(in use)---seg4(in use). If we want to allocate some data, we can do it by using seg2, but if the size of data is bigger than the size of the seg2, we won’t be able to do so and the space will be wasted and the memory fragmented. Another problem is that some segments could have a larger size and since this segment can’t be “broken” into smaller pieces, it must be fully allocated in memory.
2.1. Paging:
The main advantages of using paging is to abstract the physical memory, hence, the programs (and programmers) don’t need to bother with memory addresses. You can have two programs that access the (virtual) memory 2000 because it will be mapped into two different physical memories. Also, it’s possible to use the hard disk to ensure that only the necessary pages are allocated into memory. The main disadvantage is that paging uses only one linear address space. Paging maps virtual memories from 0 to the max addressable value for all programs. Now consider this example - two chunks of memory, “chk1” and “chk2” are next to each other on virtual memory ( chk1 is allocated from address 1000 to 2000 and chk2 uses from 2001 to 3000), if chk1 needs to grow, the OS needs to make room in the memory for the new size of chk1. If that happens again, the OS will have to do the same thing or, if no space can be found, an exception will pop. The routines for managing this kind of operations are very bad for performance, because it this growth and shrink of the memory happens a lot of time.
Segmentation and Paging
3.1. Why combine both?
An operational systems can combine both segmentation and paging. Why? Because combining then it’s possible to have the best from both without their disadvantages. So, the memory is divided in many segments and each one of those have one or more pages. When a program tries to access a memory address, first the OS goes to the correspondent segment, there he’ll find the correspondent page, so he goes to the page and there he’ll find the frame page that the program wanted to access. Using this approach, the OS divides the memory into various segments, including segments for the kernel and user programs. These segments have variable sizes and access protection features. To solve the fragmentation and the “big segment” problems, paging is used. With paging a larger segment is broken into several pages and only the necessary pages remains in memory (and more pages could be allocated in memory if needed). So, basically, the Modern OSs have two memory abstractions, where segmentation is more used for “handling the programs” and Paging for “managing the physical memory”.
3.2. How it really works?
An OS running segmentation and Paging will have the following structures:
3.2.1. Segment Selector:
This represents an index on the Global/Local Descriptor Table. It contains 3 fields that represent the index on the descriptor table, a bit to identify if that segment is present on Global or Local descriptor table and a privilege level.
3.2.2. Segment Register:
A CPU register used to store segment selector. Usually ( on a x86 machine) there is at least the register CS (Code Segment) and DS (Data Segment).
3.2.3. Segment descriptors:
This structure contains the data regarding a segment, like his base address, size ( in pages or in bytes), the access privilege, the information of if this segment is present on the memory or not, etc. (for all the fields, search for segment descriptors on google)
3.2.4. Global/Local Descriptor Table:
The table that contains several segment descriptors. So this structure holds all the segment descriptors for the system. If the table is Global, it can hold other things like Local Descriptor Tables descriptors, Task State Segment Descriptors and Call Gate descriptors (I’ll not explain these here, please, google them). If the table is Local, it will only ( as far as I know) holds user related segment descriptors.
3.3. How it works?
So, to access a memory, first the program needs to access a segment. To do this a segment selector is loaded into a segment register and then a Global or Local Descriptor table (depending of field on the segment selector). This is the reason of the fully memory address be SEGMENT REGISTER: ADDRESS , like CS:ADDRESS -> 001B:0044BF7A. Now the OS goes to the G/LDT and (using the index field of the segment selector) finds the segment descriptor of the address trying to access. Then it checks if the segment if present, the protection and if everything is ok it goes to the address stated on the “base field” (of the descriptor) + the address offset . If paging is not enabled, the system goes directly into the real memory, but with paging on the address is treated as a virtual address and it goes to the Page directory. The base address + the offset are called Linear Address and will be interpreted as 3 fields: Directory+Page+offset. So on the Directory page, it will search for the directory entry specified on the “directory” field of the linear address, this entry points to the page table and the field “page” of the linear address is used to find the page, this entry points to a frame page and the offset is used to find the exactly address that the program want to access.
3.4. Modern Operational Systems
Modern OSes "do not use" segmentation. Its in quotes because they use 4 segments: Kernel Code Segment, Kernel Data Segment, User Code Segment and User Data Segment. What does it means is that all user's processes have the same code and data segments (so the same segment selector). The segments only change when going from user to kernel.
So, all the path explained on the section 3.3. occurs, but they use the same segments and, since the page tables are individual per process, a page fault is difficult to happen.
Hope this helps and if there is any mistakes or some more details ( I was I bit generic on some parts) please, feel free to comment and reply.
Thank you guys
Danilo PC
They only use paging for memory protection, while they use segmentation for other purposes (like storing thread-local data).
I was reading up on Virtual Memory and from what I understand is that each process has its own VM table that maps VM addresses to Physical Addresses in real memory. So if a process allocated objects continuously they can potentially be stored in completely different places in Physical Memory. My question is that if I allocate and array which is supposed to be stored in a contiguous block of memory and if the size of the array requires more space than one page can provide, from what I understand is that array will be stored contiguously in VM but possibly in completely different location in PM. Is this correct? please correct me if I misunderstood how VM works. And if it is correct does that mean we are only concerned whether allocation is contiguous in VM?
Whether or not something that overlaps a page boundary is actually contiguous in Physical Memory is never really knowable with modern memory handlers. Memory glue logic essentially treats all addressable memory pages as an unordered set, and the ordering is essentially associated with a process; there's no guarantee that for different processes that end up getting assigned the same two physical memory pages (at different points in time) that the expressed relationship between those physical pages will be the same. Effectively, there's a translation layer between the CPU and the memory that handles this stuff.
That's right. Arrays must only looks contiguous for your application, but may be physically scattered on memory.
I just wanted to add/make it clear that from a user space program's point of view, a chunk of allocated memory always appears contiguous. The operating system in conjunction with the CPU's Memory Management Unit (MMU) handles all virtual to physical memory mappings and the programmer never needs to worry about how this mapping is handled (unless, of course, said programmer is writing an operating system).
A compiler (or one who writes code in assembly) can treat a program's addresses as starting from 0 and going up until the largest address needed for that particular program. The operating system then creates a page table for each process and uses this table to partially decode a physical address for each virtual memory location. The OS treats an address in a program as two separate parts, the page address and the offset into that page. Then, the MMU translates a page address into a physical frame address. Note that a physical memory "frame" is analogous to the conceptual "page" from the standpoint of the OS; these two are of the same size (eg 4096 bytes).
Since physical memory is divided into equally sized frames, and page size is the same as frame size you can know how much of your virtual address is used as a page location and how much is an offset into that page. For instance, if your OS "allocates" 4 gigabytes to each process (as is the case in Linux), and your page/frame size is 4096 bytes, you can know that 20 bits (4,294,967,296 bytes / 4096 bytes = 2 ^ 20 = 1,048,576 pages/page addresses) of a 32 bit address are used as a page address, which will then be converted to a physical frame address by the MMU, and the remaining 12 bits are used as an offset to determine the location of the address starting from the beginning of the page/frame.
VM (user pace) address --> page + offset (OS) --> frame + offset (MMU) = physical address
Our teachers has asked us around 50 true of false questions in preparation for our final exam. I could find an answer for most of them online or by asking relative. How ever, those 4 questions adrive driving me crazy. Most of those question aren't that hard, I just cant get any satisfying answer anywhere. Sorry, the original question are not written in english, i had to translate them myself. If you don't understand something, please tell me.
Thanks!
True or false
The size of the manipulated address by the processor determines the size of the virtual memory. How ever, the size of the memory cache is independent.
For long, DRAM technology stayed imcompatible with CMOS technology used to do the standard logic in processor. This is the reason DRAM memory is (most of the time) used outside of the processor (on a different chip).
Pagination let correspond multiple virtual addressing space to a same space of physical addressing.
An associative cache memory with sets of 1 line is an entierly associative cache memory, because one memory block can go in any set since each sets are of the same size that of the block.
"Manipulated address" is not a term of the art. You have an m-bit virtual address mapping to an n-bit physical address. Yes, a cache may be of any size up to the physical address size, but typically is much smaller. Note that cache lines are tagged with virtual or more typically physical address bits corresponding to the maximum virtual or physical address range of the machine.
Yes, DRAM processes and logic processes are each tuned for different objectives, and involve different process steps (different materials and thicknesses to lay down DRAM capacitor stacks/trenches, for example) and historically you haven't built processors in DRAM processes (except the Mitsubishi M32RD) nor DRAM in logic processes. Exception is so-called eDRAM that IBM likes to use for their SOI processes, and which is used as last level cache in IBM microprocessors such as the Power 7.
"Pagination" is what we call issuing a form feed so that text output begins at the top of the next page. "Paging" on the other hand is sometimes a synonym for virtual memory management, by which a virtual address is mapped (on a page by page basis) to a physical address. If you set up your page tables just so it allows multiple virtual addresses (indeed, virtual addresses from different processes' virtual address spaces) to map to the same physical address and hence the same location in real RAM.
"An associative cache memory with sets of 1 line is an entierly associative cache memory, because one memory block can go in any set since each sets are of the same size that of the block."
Hmm, that's a strange question. Let's break it down. 1) You can have a direct mapped cache, in which an address maps to only one cache line. 2) You can have a fully associative cache, in which an address can map to any cache line; there is something like a CAM (content addressible memory) tag structure to find which if any line matches the address. Or 3) you can have an n-way set associative cache, in which you have, essentially, n sets of direct mapped caches, and a given address can map to one of n lines. There are other more esoteric cache organizations, but I doubt you're being taught them.
So let's parse the statement. "An associative cache memory". Well that rules out direct mapped caches. So we're left with "fully associative" and "n-way set associative". It has sets of 1 line. OK, so if it is set associative, then instead of something traditional like 4-ways x 64 lines/way, it is n-ways x 1 lines/way. In other words, it is fully associative. I would say this is a true statement, except the term of the art is "fully associative" not "entirely associative."
Makes sense?
Happy hacking!
True, more or less (it depends on the accuracy of your translation I guess :) ) The number of bits in addresses sets an upper limit on the virtual memory space; you could, of course, choose not to use all the bits. The size of the memory cache depends on how much actual memory is installed, which is independent; but of course if you had more memory than you can address, then it still can't be used.
Almost certainly false. We have RAM on separate chips so that we can install more without building a whole new computer or replacing the CPU.
There is no a-priori upper or lower limit to the cache size, though in a real application certain sizes make more sense than others, of course.
I don't know of any incompatibility. The reason why we use SRAM as on-die cache is because it's faster.
Maybe you can force an MMUs to map different virtual addresses to the same physical location, but usually it's used the other way around.
I don't understand the question.
Admittedly I don't get it. Say you have a memory with a memory word of length of 1 byte. Why can't you access a 4 byte long variable in a single memory access on an unaligned address(i.e. not divisible by 4), as it's the case with aligned addresses?
The memory subsystem on a modern processor is restricted to accessing memory at the granularity and alignment of its word size; this is the case for a number of reasons.
Speed
Modern processors have multiple levels of cache memory that data must be pulled through; supporting single-byte reads would make the memory subsystem throughput tightly bound to the execution unit throughput (aka cpu-bound); this is all reminiscent of how PIO mode was surpassed by DMA for many of the same reasons in hard drives.
The CPU always reads at its word size (4 bytes on a 32-bit processor), so when you do an unaligned address access — on a processor that supports it — the processor is going to read multiple words. The CPU will read each word of memory that your requested address straddles. This causes an amplification of up to 2X the number of memory transactions required to access the requested data.
Because of this, it can very easily be slower to read two bytes than four. For example, say you have a struct in memory that looks like this:
struct mystruct {
char c; // one byte
int i; // four bytes
short s; // two bytes
}
On a 32-bit processor it would most likely be aligned like shown here:
The processor can read each of these members in one transaction.
Say you had a packed version of the struct, maybe from the network where it was packed for transmission efficiency; it might look something like this:
Reading the first byte is going to be the same.
When you ask the processor to give you 16 bits from 0x0005 it will have to read a word from 0x0004 and shift left 1 byte to place it in a 16-bit register; some extra work, but most can handle that in one cycle.
When you ask for 32 bits from 0x0001 you'll get a 2X amplification. The processor will read from 0x0000 into the result register and shift left 1 byte, then read again from 0x0004 into a temporary register, shift right 3 bytes, then OR it with the result register.
Range
For any given address space, if the architecture can assume that the 2 LSBs are always 0 (e.g., 32-bit machines) then it can access 4 times more memory (the 2 saved bits can represent 4 distinct states), or the same amount of memory with 2 bits for something like flags. Taking the 2 LSBs off of an address would give you a 4-byte alignment; also referred to as a stride of 4 bytes. Each time an address is incremented it is effectively incrementing bit 2, not bit 0, i.e., the last 2 bits will always continue to be 00.
This can even affect the physical design of the system. If the address bus needs 2 fewer bits, there can be 2 fewer pins on the CPU, and 2 fewer traces on the circuit board.
Atomicity
The CPU can operate on an aligned word of memory atomically, meaning that no other instruction can interrupt that operation. This is critical to the correct operation of many lock-free data structures and other concurrency paradigms.
Conclusion
The memory system of a processor is quite a bit more complex and involved than described here; a discussion on how an x86 processor actually addresses memory can help (many processors work similarly).
There are many more benefits to adhering to memory alignment that you can read at this IBM article.
A computer's primary use is to transform data. Modern memory architectures and technologies have been optimized over decades to facilitate getting more data, in, out, and between more and faster execution units–in a highly reliable way.
Bonus: Caches
Another alignment-for-performance that I alluded to previously is alignment on cache lines which are (for example, on some CPUs) 64B.
For more info on how much performance can be gained by leveraging caches, take a look at Gallery of Processor Cache Effects; from this question on cache-line sizes
Understanding of cache lines can be important for certain types of program optimizations. For example, the alignment of data may determine whether an operation touches one or two cache lines. As we saw in the example above, this can easily mean that in the misaligned case, the operation will be twice slower.
It's a limitation of many underlying processors. It can usually be worked around by doing 4 inefficient single byte fetches rather than one efficient word fetch, but many language specifiers decided it would be easier just to outlaw them and force everything to be aligned.
There is much more information in this link that the OP discovered.
you can with some processors (the nehalem can do this), but previously all memory access was aligned on a 64-bit (or 32-bit) line, because the bus is 64 bits wide, you had to fetch 64 bit at a time, and it was significantly easier to fetch these in aligned 'chunks' of 64 bits.
So, if you wanted to get a single byte, you fetched the 64-bit chunk and then masked off the bits you didn't want. Easy and fast if your byte was at the right end, but if it was in the middle of that 64-bit chunk, you'd have to mask off the unwanted bits and then shift the data over to the right place. Worse, if you wanted a 2 byte variable, but that was split across 2 chunks, then that required double the required memory accesses.
So, as everyone thinks memory is cheap, they just made the compiler align the data on the processor's chunk sizes so your code runs faster and more efficiently at the cost of wasted memory.
Fundamentally, the reason is because the memory bus has some specific length that is much, much smaller than the memory size.
So, the CPU reads out of the on-chip L1 cache, which is often 32KB these days. But the memory bus that connects the L1 cache to the CPU will have the vastly smaller width of the cache line size. This will be on the order of 128 bits.
So:
262,144 bits - size of memory
128 bits - size of bus
Misaligned accesses will occasionally overlap two cache lines, and this will require an entirely new cache read in order to obtain the data. It might even miss all the way out to the DRAM.
Furthermore, some part of the CPU will have to stand on its head to put together a single object out of these two different cache lines which each have a piece of the data. On one line, it will be in the very high order bits, in the other, the very low order bits.
There will be dedicated hardware fully integrated into the pipeline that handles moving aligned objects onto the necessary bits of the CPU data bus, but such hardware may be lacking for misaligned objects, because it probably makes more sense to use those transistors for speeding up correctly optimized programs.
In any case, the second memory read that is sometimes necessary would slow down the pipeline no matter how much special-purpose hardware was (hypothetically and foolishly) dedicated to patching up misaligned memory operations.
#joshperry has given an excellent answer to this question. In addition to his answer, I have some numbers that show graphically the effects which were described, especially the 2X amplification. Here's a link to a Google spreadsheet showing what the effect of different word alignments look like.
In addition here's a link to a Github gist with the code for the test.
The test code is adapted from the article written by Jonathan Rentzsch which #joshperry referenced. The tests were run on a Macbook Pro with a quad-core 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 64-bit processor and 16GB of RAM.
If you have a 32bit data bus, the address bus address lines connected to the memory will start from A2, so only 32bit aligned addresses can be accessed in a single bus cycle.
So if a word spans an address alignment boundary - i.e. A0 for 16/32 bit data or A1 for 32 bit data are not zero, two bus cycles are required to obtain the data.
Some architectures/instruction sets do not support unaligned access and will generate an exception on such attempts, so compiler generated unaligned access code requires not just additional bus cycles, but additional instructions, making it even less efficient.
If a system with byte-addressable memory has a 32-bit-wide memory bus, that means there are effectively four byte-wide memory systems which are all wired to read or write the same address. An aligned 32-bit read will require information stored in the same address in all four memory systems, so all systems can supply data simultaneously. An unaligned 32-bit read would require some memory systems to return data from one address, and some to return data from the next higher address. Although there are some memory systems that are optimized to be able to fulfill such requests (in addition to their address, they effectively have a "plus one" signal which causes them to use an address one higher than specified) such a feature adds considerable cost and complexity to a memory system; most commodity memory systems simply cannot return portions of different 32-bit words at the same time.
On PowerPC you can load an integer from an odd address with no problems.
Sparc and I86 and (I think) Itatnium raise hardware exceptions when you try this.
One 32 bit load vs four 8 bit loads isnt going to make a lot of difference on most modern processors. Whether the data is already in cache or not will have a far greater effect.