diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/scheduler/sched-BFS.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/scheduler/sched-BFS.txt | 357 |
1 files changed, 357 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-BFS.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-BFS.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..77a1e37b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-BFS.txt @@ -0,0 +1,357 @@ +BFS - The Brain Fuck Scheduler by Con Kolivas. + +Goals. + +The goal of the Brain Fuck Scheduler, referred to as BFS from here on, is to +completely do away with the complex designs of the past for the cpu process +scheduler and instead implement one that is very simple in basic design. +The main focus of BFS is to achieve excellent desktop interactivity and +responsiveness without heuristics and tuning knobs that are difficult to +understand, impossible to model and predict the effect of, and when tuned to +one workload cause massive detriment to another. + + +Design summary. + +BFS is best described as a single runqueue, O(n) lookup, earliest effective +virtual deadline first design, loosely based on EEVDF (earliest eligible virtual +deadline first) and my previous Staircase Deadline scheduler. Each component +shall be described in order to understand the significance of, and reasoning for +it. The codebase when the first stable version was released was approximately +9000 lines less code than the existing mainline linux kernel scheduler (in +2.6.31). This does not even take into account the removal of documentation and +the cgroups code that is not used. + +Design reasoning. + +The single runqueue refers to the queued but not running processes for the +entire system, regardless of the number of CPUs. The reason for going back to +a single runqueue design is that once multiple runqueues are introduced, +per-CPU or otherwise, there will be complex interactions as each runqueue will +be responsible for the scheduling latency and fairness of the tasks only on its +own runqueue, and to achieve fairness and low latency across multiple CPUs, any +advantage in throughput of having CPU local tasks causes other disadvantages. +This is due to requiring a very complex balancing system to at best achieve some +semblance of fairness across CPUs and can only maintain relatively low latency +for tasks bound to the same CPUs, not across them. To increase said fairness +and latency across CPUs, the advantage of local runqueue locking, which makes +for better scalability, is lost due to having to grab multiple locks. + +A significant feature of BFS is that all accounting is done purely based on CPU +used and nowhere is sleep time used in any way to determine entitlement or +interactivity. Interactivity "estimators" that use some kind of sleep/run +algorithm are doomed to fail to detect all interactive tasks, and to falsely tag +tasks that aren't interactive as being so. The reason for this is that it is +close to impossible to determine that when a task is sleeping, whether it is +doing it voluntarily, as in a userspace application waiting for input in the +form of a mouse click or otherwise, or involuntarily, because it is waiting for +another thread, process, I/O, kernel activity or whatever. Thus, such an +estimator will introduce corner cases, and more heuristics will be required to +cope with those corner cases, introducing more corner cases and failed +interactivity detection and so on. Interactivity in BFS is built into the design +by virtue of the fact that tasks that are waking up have not used up their quota +of CPU time, and have earlier effective deadlines, thereby making it very likely +they will preempt any CPU bound task of equivalent nice level. See below for +more information on the virtual deadline mechanism. Even if they do not preempt +a running task, because the rr interval is guaranteed to have a bound upper +limit on how long a task will wait for, it will be scheduled within a timeframe +that will not cause visible interface jitter. + + +Design details. + +Task insertion. + +BFS inserts tasks into each relevant queue as an O(1) insertion into a double +linked list. On insertion, *every* running queue is checked to see if the newly +queued task can run on any idle queue, or preempt the lowest running task on the +system. This is how the cross-CPU scheduling of BFS achieves significantly lower +latency per extra CPU the system has. In this case the lookup is, in the worst +case scenario, O(n) where n is the number of CPUs on the system. + +Data protection. + +BFS has one single lock protecting the process local data of every task in the +global queue. Thus every insertion, removal and modification of task data in the +global runqueue needs to grab the global lock. However, once a task is taken by +a CPU, the CPU has its own local data copy of the running process' accounting +information which only that CPU accesses and modifies (such as during a +timer tick) thus allowing the accounting data to be updated lockless. Once a +CPU has taken a task to run, it removes it from the global queue. Thus the +global queue only ever has, at most, + + (number of tasks requesting cpu time) - (number of logical CPUs) + 1 + +tasks in the global queue. This value is relevant for the time taken to look up +tasks during scheduling. This will increase if many tasks with CPU affinity set +in their policy to limit which CPUs they're allowed to run on if they outnumber +the number of CPUs. The +1 is because when rescheduling a task, the CPU's +currently running task is put back on the queue. Lookup will be described after +the virtual deadline mechanism is explained. + +Virtual deadline. + +The key to achieving low latency, scheduling fairness, and "nice level" +distribution in BFS is entirely in the virtual deadline mechanism. The related +tunable in BFS is the rr_interval, or "round robin interval". This is the +maximum time two SCHED_OTHER (or SCHED_NORMAL, the common scheduling policy) +tasks of the same nice level will be running for, or looking at it the other +way around, the longest duration two tasks of the same nice level will be +delayed for. When a task requests cpu time, it is given a quota (time_slice) +equal to the rr_interval and a virtual deadline. The virtual deadline is +offset from the current time in jiffies by this equation: + + jiffies + (prio_ratio * rr_interval) + +The prio_ratio is determined as a ratio compared to the baseline of nice -20 +and increases by 10% per nice level. The deadline is a virtual one only in that +no guarantee is placed that a task will actually be scheduled by this time, but +it is used to compare which task should go next. There are three components to +how a task is next chosen. First is time_slice expiration. If a task runs out +of its time_slice, it is descheduled, the time_slice is refilled, and the +deadline reset to that formula above. Second is sleep, where a task no longer +is requesting CPU for whatever reason. The time_slice and deadline are _not_ +adjusted in this case and are just carried over for when the task is next +scheduled. Third is preemption, and that is when a newly waking task is deemed +higher priority than a currently running task on any cpu by virtue of the fact +that it has an earlier virtual deadline than the currently running task. The +earlier deadline is the key to which task is next chosen for the first and +second cases. Once a task is descheduled, it is put back on the queue, and an +O(n) lookup of all queued-but-not-running tasks is done to determine which has +the earliest deadline and that task is chosen to receive CPU next. + +The CPU proportion of different nice tasks works out to be approximately the + + (prio_ratio difference)^2 + +The reason it is squared is that a task's deadline does not change while it is +running unless it runs out of time_slice. Thus, even if the time actually +passes the deadline of another task that is queued, it will not get CPU time +unless the current running task deschedules, and the time "base" (jiffies) is +constantly moving. + +Task lookup. + +BFS has 103 priority queues. 100 of these are dedicated to the static priority +of realtime tasks, and the remaining 3 are, in order of best to worst priority, +SCHED_ISO (isochronous), SCHED_NORMAL, and SCHED_IDLEPRIO (idle priority +scheduling). When a task of these priorities is queued, a bitmap of running +priorities is set showing which of these priorities has tasks waiting for CPU +time. When a CPU is made to reschedule, the lookup for the next task to get +CPU time is performed in the following way: + +First the bitmap is checked to see what static priority tasks are queued. If +any realtime priorities are found, the corresponding queue is checked and the +first task listed there is taken (provided CPU affinity is suitable) and lookup +is complete. If the priority corresponds to a SCHED_ISO task, they are also +taken in FIFO order (as they behave like SCHED_RR). If the priority corresponds +to either SCHED_NORMAL or SCHED_IDLEPRIO, then the lookup becomes O(n). At this +stage, every task in the runlist that corresponds to that priority is checked +to see which has the earliest set deadline, and (provided it has suitable CPU +affinity) it is taken off the runqueue and given the CPU. If a task has an +expired deadline, it is taken and the rest of the lookup aborted (as they are +chosen in FIFO order). + +Thus, the lookup is O(n) in the worst case only, where n is as described +earlier, as tasks may be chosen before the whole task list is looked over. + + +Scalability. + +The major limitations of BFS will be that of scalability, as the separate +runqueue designs will have less lock contention as the number of CPUs rises. +However they do not scale linearly even with separate runqueues as multiple +runqueues will need to be locked concurrently on such designs to be able to +achieve fair CPU balancing, to try and achieve some sort of nice-level fairness +across CPUs, and to achieve low enough latency for tasks on a busy CPU when +other CPUs would be more suited. BFS has the advantage that it requires no +balancing algorithm whatsoever, as balancing occurs by proxy simply because +all CPUs draw off the global runqueue, in priority and deadline order. Despite +the fact that scalability is _not_ the prime concern of BFS, it both shows very +good scalability to smaller numbers of CPUs and is likely a more scalable design +at these numbers of CPUs. + +It also has some very low overhead scalability features built into the design +when it has been deemed their overhead is so marginal that they're worth adding. +The first is the local copy of the running process' data to the CPU it's running +on to allow that data to be updated lockless where possible. Then there is +deference paid to the last CPU a task was running on, by trying that CPU first +when looking for an idle CPU to use the next time it's scheduled. Finally there +is the notion of "sticky" tasks that are flagged when they are involuntarily +descheduled, meaning they still want further CPU time. This sticky flag is +used to bias heavily against those tasks being scheduled on a different CPU +unless that CPU would be otherwise idle. When a cpu frequency governor is used +that scales with CPU load, such as ondemand, sticky tasks are not scheduled +on a different CPU at all, preferring instead to go idle. This means the CPU +they were bound to is more likely to increase its speed while the other CPU +will go idle, thus speeding up total task execution time and likely decreasing +power usage. This is the only scenario where BFS will allow a CPU to go idle +in preference to scheduling a task on the earliest available spare CPU. + +The real cost of migrating a task from one CPU to another is entirely dependant +on the cache footprint of the task, how cache intensive the task is, how long +it's been running on that CPU to take up the bulk of its cache, how big the CPU +cache is, how fast and how layered the CPU cache is, how fast a context switch +is... and so on. In other words, it's close to random in the real world where we +do more than just one sole workload. The only thing we can be sure of is that +it's not free. So BFS uses the principle that an idle CPU is a wasted CPU and +utilising idle CPUs is more important than cache locality, and cache locality +only plays a part after that. + +When choosing an idle CPU for a waking task, the cache locality is determined +according to where the task last ran and then idle CPUs are ranked from best +to worst to choose the most suitable idle CPU based on cache locality, NUMA +node locality and hyperthread sibling business. They are chosen in the +following preference (if idle): + +* Same core, idle or busy cache, idle threads +* Other core, same cache, idle or busy cache, idle threads. +* Same node, other CPU, idle cache, idle threads. +* Same node, other CPU, busy cache, idle threads. +* Same core, busy threads. +* Other core, same cache, busy threads. +* Same node, other CPU, busy threads. +* Other node, other CPU, idle cache, idle threads. +* Other node, other CPU, busy cache, idle threads. +* Other node, other CPU, busy threads. + +This shows the SMT or "hyperthread" awareness in the design as well which will +choose a real idle core first before a logical SMT sibling which already has +tasks on the physical CPU. + +Early benchmarking of BFS suggested scalability dropped off at the 16 CPU mark. +However this benchmarking was performed on an earlier design that was far less +scalable than the current one so it's hard to know how scalable it is in terms +of both CPUs (due to the global runqueue) and heavily loaded machines (due to +O(n) lookup) at this stage. Note that in terms of scalability, the number of +_logical_ CPUs matters, not the number of _physical_ CPUs. Thus, a dual (2x) +quad core (4X) hyperthreaded (2X) machine is effectively a 16X. Newer benchmark +results are very promising indeed. Benchmark contributions are most welcome. + + +Features + +As the initial prime target audience for BFS was the average desktop user, it +was designed to not need tweaking, tuning or have features set to obtain benefit +from it. Thus the number of knobs and features has been kept to an absolute +minimum and should not require extra user input for the vast majority of cases. +There are precisely 2 tunables, and 2 extra scheduling policies. The rr_interval +and iso_cpu tunables, and the SCHED_ISO and SCHED_IDLEPRIO policies. In addition +to this, BFS also uses sub-tick accounting. What BFS does _not_ now feature is +support for CGROUPS. The average user should neither need to know what these +are, nor should they need to be using them to have good desktop behaviour. + +There are two "scheduler" tunables, the round robin interval and the +interactive flag. These can be accessed in + + /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval + /proc/sys/kernel/interactive + +rr_interval value + +The value is in milliseconds, and the default value is set to 6ms. Valid values +are from 1 to 1000. Decreasing the value will decrease latencies at the cost of +decreasing throughput, while increasing it will improve throughput, but at the +cost of worsening latencies. The accuracy of the rr interval is limited by HZ +resolution of the kernel configuration. Thus, the worst case latencies are +usually slightly higher than this actual value. BFS uses "dithering" to try and +minimise the effect the Hz limitation has. The default value of 6 is not an +arbitrary one. It is based on the fact that humans can detect jitter at +approximately 7ms, so aiming for much lower latencies is pointless under most +circumstances. It is worth noting this fact when comparing the latency +performance of BFS to other schedulers. Worst case latencies being higher than +7ms are far worse than average latencies not being in the microsecond range. +Experimentation has shown that rr intervals being increased up to 300 can +improve throughput but beyond that, scheduling noise from elsewhere prevents +further demonstrable throughput. + +interactive flag + +This is a simple boolean that can be set to 1 or 0, set to 1 by default. This +sacrifices some of the interactive performance by giving tasks a degree of +soft affinity for logical CPUs when it will lead to improved throughput, but +enabling it also sacrifices the completely deterministic nature with respect +to latency that BFS otherwise normally provides, and subsequently leads to +slightly higher latencies and a noticeably less interactive system. + + +Isochronous scheduling. + +Isochronous scheduling is a unique scheduling policy designed to provide +near-real-time performance to unprivileged (ie non-root) users without the +ability to starve the machine indefinitely. Isochronous tasks (which means +"same time") are set using, for example, the schedtool application like so: + + schedtool -I -e amarok + +This will start the audio application "amarok" as SCHED_ISO. How SCHED_ISO works +is that it has a priority level between true realtime tasks and SCHED_NORMAL +which would allow them to preempt all normal tasks, in a SCHED_RR fashion (ie, +if multiple SCHED_ISO tasks are running, they purely round robin at rr_interval +rate). However if ISO tasks run for more than a tunable finite amount of time, +they are then demoted back to SCHED_NORMAL scheduling. This finite amount of +time is the percentage of _total CPU_ available across the machine, configurable +as a percentage in the following "resource handling" tunable (as opposed to a +scheduler tunable): + + /proc/sys/kernel/iso_cpu + +and is set to 70% by default. It is calculated over a rolling 5 second average +Because it is the total CPU available, it means that on a multi CPU machine, it +is possible to have an ISO task running as realtime scheduling indefinitely on +just one CPU, as the other CPUs will be available. Setting this to 100 is the +equivalent of giving all users SCHED_RR access and setting it to 0 removes the +ability to run any pseudo-realtime tasks. + +A feature of BFS is that it detects when an application tries to obtain a +realtime policy (SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO) and the caller does not have the +appropriate privileges to use those policies. When it detects this, it will +give the task SCHED_ISO policy instead. Thus it is transparent to the user. +Because some applications constantly set their policy as well as their nice +level, there is potential for them to undo the override specified by the user +on the command line of setting the policy to SCHED_ISO. To counter this, once +a task has been set to SCHED_ISO policy, it needs superuser privileges to set +it back to SCHED_NORMAL. This will ensure the task remains ISO and all child +processes and threads will also inherit the ISO policy. + +Idleprio scheduling. + +Idleprio scheduling is a scheduling policy designed to give out CPU to a task +_only_ when the CPU would be otherwise idle. The idea behind this is to allow +ultra low priority tasks to be run in the background that have virtually no +effect on the foreground tasks. This is ideally suited to distributed computing +clients (like setiathome, folding, mprime etc) but can also be used to start +a video encode or so on without any slowdown of other tasks. To avoid this +policy from grabbing shared resources and holding them indefinitely, if it +detects a state where the task is waiting on I/O, the machine is about to +suspend to ram and so on, it will transiently schedule them as SCHED_NORMAL. As +per the Isochronous task management, once a task has been scheduled as IDLEPRIO, +it cannot be put back to SCHED_NORMAL without superuser privileges. Tasks can +be set to start as SCHED_IDLEPRIO with the schedtool command like so: + + schedtool -D -e ./mprime + +Subtick accounting. + +It is surprisingly difficult to get accurate CPU accounting, and in many cases, +the accounting is done by simply determining what is happening at the precise +moment a timer tick fires off. This becomes increasingly inaccurate as the +timer tick frequency (HZ) is lowered. It is possible to create an application +which uses almost 100% CPU, yet by being descheduled at the right time, records +zero CPU usage. While the main problem with this is that there are possible +security implications, it is also difficult to determine how much CPU a task +really does use. BFS tries to use the sub-tick accounting from the TSC clock, +where possible, to determine real CPU usage. This is not entirely reliable, but +is far more likely to produce accurate CPU usage data than the existing designs +and will not show tasks as consuming no CPU usage when they actually are. Thus, +the amount of CPU reported as being used by BFS will more accurately represent +how much CPU the task itself is using (as is shown for example by the 'time' +application), so the reported values may be quite different to other schedulers. +Values reported as the 'load' are more prone to problems with this design, but +per process values are closer to real usage. When comparing throughput of BFS +to other designs, it is important to compare the actual completed work in terms +of total wall clock time taken and total work done, rather than the reported +"cpu usage". + + +Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> Tue, 5 Apr 2011 |