OpenCores
URL https://opencores.org/ocsvn/or1k_soc_on_altera_embedded_dev_kit/or1k_soc_on_altera_embedded_dev_kit/trunk

Subversion Repositories or1k_soc_on_altera_embedded_dev_kit

[/] [or1k_soc_on_altera_embedded_dev_kit/] [trunk/] [linux-2.6/] [linux-2.6.24/] [Documentation/] [sched-design.txt] - Blame information for rev 3

Details | Compare with Previous | View Log

Line No. Rev Author Line
1 3 xianfeng
                   Goals, Design and Implementation of the
2
                      new ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler
3
 
4
 
5
  This is an edited version of an email Ingo Molnar sent to
6
  lkml on 4 Jan 2002.  It describes the goals, design, and
7
  implementation of Ingo's new ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler.
8
  Last Updated: 18 April 2002.
9
 
10
 
11
Goal
12
====
13
 
14
The main goal of the new scheduler is to keep all the good things we know
15
and love about the current Linux scheduler:
16
 
17
 - good interactive performance even during high load: if the user
18
   types or clicks then the system must react instantly and must execute
19
   the user tasks smoothly, even during considerable background load.
20
 
21
 - good scheduling/wakeup performance with 1-2 runnable processes.
22
 
23
 - fairness: no process should stay without any timeslice for any
24
   unreasonable amount of time. No process should get an unjustly high
25
   amount of CPU time.
26
 
27
 - priorities: less important tasks can be started with lower priority,
28
   more important tasks with higher priority.
29
 
30
 - SMP efficiency: no CPU should stay idle if there is work to do.
31
 
32
 - SMP affinity: processes which run on one CPU should stay affine to
33
   that CPU. Processes should not bounce between CPUs too frequently.
34
 
35
 - plus additional scheduler features: RT scheduling, CPU binding.
36
 
37
and the goal is also to add a few new things:
38
 
39
 - fully O(1) scheduling. Are you tired of the recalculation loop
40
   blowing the L1 cache away every now and then? Do you think the goodness
41
   loop is taking a bit too long to finish if there are lots of runnable
42
   processes? This new scheduler takes no prisoners: wakeup(), schedule(),
43
   the timer interrupt are all O(1) algorithms. There is no recalculation
44
   loop. There is no goodness loop either.
45
 
46
 - 'perfect' SMP scalability. With the new scheduler there is no 'big'
47
   runqueue_lock anymore - it's all per-CPU runqueues and locks - two
48
   tasks on two separate CPUs can wake up, schedule and context-switch
49
   completely in parallel, without any interlocking. All
50
   scheduling-relevant data is structured for maximum scalability.
51
 
52
 - better SMP affinity. The old scheduler has a particular weakness that
53
   causes the random bouncing of tasks between CPUs if/when higher
54
   priority/interactive tasks, this was observed and reported by many
55
   people. The reason is that the timeslice recalculation loop first needs
56
   every currently running task to consume its timeslice. But when this
57
   happens on eg. an 8-way system, then this property starves an
58
   increasing number of CPUs from executing any process. Once the last
59
   task that has a timeslice left has finished using up that timeslice,
60
   the recalculation loop is triggered and other CPUs can start executing
61
   tasks again - after having idled around for a number of timer ticks.
62
   The more CPUs, the worse this effect.
63
 
64
   Furthermore, this same effect causes the bouncing effect as well:
65
   whenever there is such a 'timeslice squeeze' of the global runqueue,
66
   idle processors start executing tasks which are not affine to that CPU.
67
   (because the affine tasks have finished off their timeslices already.)
68
 
69
   The new scheduler solves this problem by distributing timeslices on a
70
   per-CPU basis, without having any global synchronization or
71
   recalculation.
72
 
73
 - batch scheduling. A significant proportion of computing-intensive tasks
74
   benefit from batch-scheduling, where timeslices are long and processes
75
   are roundrobin scheduled. The new scheduler does such batch-scheduling
76
   of the lowest priority tasks - so nice +19 jobs will get
77
   'batch-scheduled' automatically. With this scheduler, nice +19 jobs are
78
   in essence SCHED_IDLE, from an interactiveness point of view.
79
 
80
 - handle extreme loads more smoothly, without breakdown and scheduling
81
   storms.
82
 
83
 - O(1) RT scheduling. For those RT folks who are paranoid about the
84
   O(nr_running) property of the goodness loop and the recalculation loop.
85
 
86
 - run fork()ed children before the parent. Andrea has pointed out the
87
   advantages of this a few months ago, but patches for this feature
88
   do not work with the old scheduler as well as they should,
89
   because idle processes often steal the new child before the fork()ing
90
   CPU gets to execute it.
91
 
92
 
93
Design
94
======
95
 
96
The core of the new scheduler contains the following mechanisms:
97
 
98
 - *two* priority-ordered 'priority arrays' per CPU. There is an 'active'
99
   array and an 'expired' array. The active array contains all tasks that
100
   are affine to this CPU and have timeslices left. The expired array
101
   contains all tasks which have used up their timeslices - but this array
102
   is kept sorted as well. The active and expired array is not accessed
103
   directly, it's accessed through two pointers in the per-CPU runqueue
104
   structure. If all active tasks are used up then we 'switch' the two
105
   pointers and from now on the ready-to-go (former-) expired array is the
106
   active array - and the empty active array serves as the new collector
107
   for expired tasks.
108
 
109
 - there is a 64-bit bitmap cache for array indices. Finding the highest
110
   priority task is thus a matter of two x86 BSFL bit-search instructions.
111
 
112
the split-array solution enables us to have an arbitrary number of active
113
and expired tasks, and the recalculation of timeslices can be done
114
immediately when the timeslice expires. Because the arrays are always
115
access through the pointers in the runqueue, switching the two arrays can
116
be done very quickly.
117
 
118
this is a hybride priority-list approach coupled with roundrobin
119
scheduling and the array-switch method of distributing timeslices.
120
 
121
 - there is a per-task 'load estimator'.
122
 
123
one of the toughest things to get right is good interactive feel during
124
heavy system load. While playing with various scheduler variants i found
125
that the best interactive feel is achieved not by 'boosting' interactive
126
tasks, but by 'punishing' tasks that want to use more CPU time than there
127
is available. This method is also much easier to do in an O(1) fashion.
128
 
129
to establish the actual 'load' the task contributes to the system, a
130
complex-looking but pretty accurate method is used: there is a 4-entry
131
'history' ringbuffer of the task's activities during the last 4 seconds.
132
This ringbuffer is operated without much overhead. The entries tell the
133
scheduler a pretty accurate load-history of the task: has it used up more
134
CPU time or less during the past N seconds. [the size '4' and the interval
135
of 4x 1 seconds was found by lots of experimentation - this part is
136
flexible and can be changed in both directions.]
137
 
138
the penalty a task gets for generating more load than the CPU can handle
139
is a priority decrease - there is a maximum amount to this penalty
140
relative to their static priority, so even fully CPU-bound tasks will
141
observe each other's priorities, and will share the CPU accordingly.
142
 
143
the SMP load-balancer can be extended/switched with additional parallel
144
computing and cache hierarchy concepts: NUMA scheduling, multi-core CPUs
145
can be supported easily by changing the load-balancer. Right now it's
146
tuned for my SMP systems.
147
 
148
i skipped the prev->mm == next->mm advantage - no workload i know of shows
149
any sensitivity to this. It can be added back by sacrificing O(1)
150
schedule() [the current and one-lower priority list can be searched for a
151
that->mm == current->mm condition], but costs a fair number of cycles
152
during a number of important workloads, so i wanted to avoid this as much
153
as possible.
154
 
155
- the SMP idle-task startup code was still racy and the new scheduler
156
triggered this. So i streamlined the idle-setup code a bit. We do not call
157
into schedule() before all processors have started up fully and all idle
158
threads are in place.
159
 
160
- the patch also cleans up a number of aspects of sched.c - moves code
161
into other areas of the kernel where it's appropriate, and simplifies
162
certain code paths and data constructs. As a result, the new scheduler's
163
code is smaller than the old one.
164
 
165
        Ingo

powered by: WebSVN 2.1.0

© copyright 1999-2024 OpenCores.org, equivalent to Oliscience, all rights reserved. OpenCores®, registered trademark.