improve affine wakeups. Maintain the 'overlap' metric based on CFS's
sum_exec_runtime - which means the amount of time a task executes
after it wakes up some other task.
Use the 'overlap' for the wakeup decisions: if the 'overlap' is short,
it means there's strong workload coupling between this task and the
woken up task. If the 'overlap' is large then the workload is decoupled
and the scheduler will move them to separate CPUs more easily.
( Also slightly move the preempt_check within try_to_wake_up() - this has
no effect on functionality but allows 'early wakeups' (for still-on-rq
tasks) to be correctly accounted as well.)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
split out the affine-wakeup bits.
No code changed:
kernel/sched.o:
text data bss dec hex filename
42521 2858 232 45611 b22b sched.o.before
42521 2858 232 45611 b22b sched.o.after
md5:
9d76738f1272aa82f0b7affd2f51df6b sched.o.before.asm
09b31c44e9aff8666f72773dc433e2df sched.o.after.asm
(the md5's changed because stack slots changed and some registers
get scheduled by gcc in a different order - but otherwise the before
and after assembly is instruction for instruction equivalent.)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Use the existing calc_delta_mine() calculation for sched_slice(). This
saves a divide and simplifies the code because we share it with the
other /cfs_rq->load users.
It also improves code size:
text data bss dec hex filename
42659 2740 144 45543 b1e7 sched.o.before
42093 2740 144 44977 afb1 sched.o.after
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Fair sleepers need to scale their latency target down by runqueue
weight. Otherwise busy systems will gain ever larger sleep bonus.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Currently we schedule to the leftmost task in the runqueue. When the
runtimes are very short because of some server/client ping-pong,
especially in over-saturated workloads, this will cycle through all
tasks trashing the cache.
Reduce cache trashing by keeping dependent tasks together by running
newly woken tasks first. However, by not running the leftmost task first
we could starve tasks because the wakee can gain unlimited runtime.
Therefore we only run the wakee if its within a small
(wakeup_granularity) window of the leftmost task. This preserves
fairness, but does alternate server/client task groups.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Current min_vruntime tracking is incorrect and will cause serious
problems when we don't run the leftmost task for some reason.
min_vruntime does two things; 1) it's used to determine a forward
direction when the u64 vruntime wraps, 2) it's used to track the
leftmost vruntime to position newly enqueued tasks from.
The current logic advances min_vruntime whenever the current task's
vruntime advance. Because the current task may pass the leftmost task
still waiting we're failing the second goal. This causes new tasks to be
placed too far ahead and thus penalizes their runtime.
Fix this by making min_vruntime the min_vruntime of the waiting tasks by
tracking it in enqueue/dequeue, and compare against current's vruntime
to obtain the absolute minimum when placing new tasks.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Kei Tokunaga reported an interactivity problem when moving tasks
between control groups.
Tasks would retain their old vruntime when moved between groups, this
can cause funny lags. Re-set the vruntime on group move to fit within
the new tree.
Reported-by: Kei Tokunaga <tokunaga.keiich@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The following commits cause a number of regressions:
commit 58e2d4ca58
Author: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:00 2008 +0100
sched: group scheduling, change how cpu load is calculated
commit 6b2d770026
Author: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:00 2008 +0100
sched: group scheduler, fix fairness of cpu bandwidth allocation for task groups
Namely:
- very frequent wakeups on SMP, reported by PowerTop users.
- cacheline trashing on (large) SMP
- some latencies larger than 500ms
While there is a mergeable patch to fix the latter, the former issues
are not fixable in a manner suitable for .25 (we're at -rc3 now).
Hence we revert them and try again in v2.6.26.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
CC: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
pick_task_entity() duplicates existing code. This functionality can be
easily obtained using rb_last(). Avoid code duplication by using rb_last().
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Michel Dänzr has bisected an interactivity problem with
plus-reniced tasks back to this commit:
810e95ccd5 is first bad commit
commit 810e95ccd5
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Mon Oct 15 17:00:14 2007 +0200
sched: another wakeup_granularity fix
unit mis-match: wakeup_gran was used against a vruntime
fix this by assymetrically scaling the vtime of positive reniced
tasks.
Bisected-by: Michel Dänzer <michel@tungstengraphics.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The reason why we are getting better wakeup latencies for
!FAIR_USER_SCHED is because of this snippet of code in place_entity():
if (!initial) {
/* sleeps upto a single latency don't count. */
if (sched_feat(NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS) && entity_is_task(se))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vruntime -= sysctl_sched_latency;
/* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime);
}
NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS feature gives credit for sleeping only to tasks and
not group-level entities. With the patch attached, I could see that
wakeup latencies with FAIR_USER_SCHED are restored to the same level as
!FAIR_USER_SCHED.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Right now, the linux kernel (with scheduler statistics enabled) keeps track
of the maximum time a process is waiting to be scheduled. While the maximum
is a very useful metric, tracking average and total is equally useful
(at least for latencytop) to figure out the accumulated effect of scheduler
delays. The accumulated effect is important to judge the performance impact
of scheduler tuning/behavior.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
print_cfs_stats is callable from interrupt context (sysrq), hence it should
not take mutexes. Change it to use RCU since the task group data is RCU
freed anyway.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
LatencyTOP kernel infrastructure; it measures latencies in the
scheduler and tracks it system wide and per process.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick.
The regular scheduler tick that runs at 1/HZ can be too coarse when nice
level are used. The fairness system will still keep the cpu utilisation 'fair'
by then delaying the task that got an excessive amount of CPU time but try to
minimize this by delivering preemption points spot-on.
The average frequency of this extra interrupt is sched_latency / nr_latency.
Which need not be higher than 1/HZ, its just that the distribution within the
sched_latency period is important.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Dmitry Adamushko found that the current implementation of the RT
balancing code left out changes to the sched_setscheduler and
rt_mutex_setprio.
This patch addresses this issue by adding methods to the schedule classes
to handle being switched out of (switched_from) and being switched into
(switched_to) a sched_class. Also a method for changing of priorities
is also added (prio_changed).
This patch also removes some duplicate logic between rt_mutex_setprio and
sched_setscheduler.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Yanmin Zhang noticed a nice optimization:
p = l * nr / nl, nl = l/g -> p = g * nr
which eliminates a do_div() from __sched_period().
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
No need to do a check for 'affine wakeup and passive balancing possibilities'
in select_task_rq_fair() when task_cpu(p) == this_cpu.
I guess, this part got missed upon introduction of per-sched_class
select_task_rq() in try_to_wake_up().
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The current wake-up code path tries to determine if it can optimize the
wake-up to "this_cpu" by computing load calculations. The problem is that
these calculations are only relevant to SCHED_OTHER tasks where load is king.
For RT tasks, priority is king. So the load calculation is completely wasted
bandwidth.
Therefore, we create a new sched_class interface to help with
pre-wakeup routing decisions and move the load calculation as a function
of CFS task's class.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The current load balancing scheme isn't good enough for precise
group fairness.
For example: on a 8-cpu system, I created 3 groups as under:
a = 8 tasks (cpu.shares = 1024)
b = 4 tasks (cpu.shares = 1024)
c = 3 tasks (cpu.shares = 1024)
a, b and c are task groups that have equal weight. We would expect each
of the groups to receive 33.33% of cpu bandwidth under a fair scheduler.
This is what I get with the latest scheduler git tree:
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Col1 | Col2 | Col3 | Col4
------|---------|-------|-------------------------------------------------------
a | 277.676 | 57.8% | 54.1% 54.1% 54.1% 54.2% 56.7% 62.2% 62.8% 64.5%
b | 116.108 | 24.2% | 47.4% 48.1% 48.7% 49.3%
c | 86.326 | 18.0% | 47.5% 47.9% 48.5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of o/p:
Col1 -> Group name
Col2 -> Cumulative execution time (in seconds) received by all tasks of that
group in a 60sec window across 8 cpus
Col3 -> CPU bandwidth received by the group in the 60sec window, expressed in
percentage. Col3 data is derived as:
Col3 = 100 * Col2 / (NR_CPUS * 60)
Col4 -> CPU bandwidth received by each individual task of the group.
Col4 = 100 * cpu_time_recd_by_task / 60
[I can share the test case that produces a similar o/p if reqd]
The deviation from desired group fairness is as below:
a = +24.47%
b = -9.13%
c = -15.33%
which is quite high.
After the patch below is applied, here are the results:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Col1 | Col2 | Col3 | Col4
------|---------|-------|-------------------------------------------------------
a | 163.112 | 34.0% | 33.2% 33.4% 33.5% 33.5% 33.7% 34.4% 34.8% 35.3%
b | 156.220 | 32.5% | 63.3% 64.5% 66.1% 66.5%
c | 160.653 | 33.5% | 85.8% 90.6% 91.4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviation from desired group fairness is as below:
a = +0.67%
b = -0.83%
c = +0.17%
which is far better IMO. Most of other runs have yielded a deviation within
+-2% at the most, which is good.
Why do we see bad (group) fairness with current scheuler?
=========================================================
Currently cpu's weight is just the summation of individual task weights.
This can yield incorrect results. For ex: consider three groups as below
on a 2-cpu system:
CPU0 CPU1
---------------------------
A (10) B(5)
C(5)
---------------------------
Group A has 10 tasks, all on CPU0, Group B and C have 5 tasks each all
of which are on CPU1. Each task has the same weight (NICE_0_LOAD =
1024).
The current scheme would yield a cpu weight of 10240 (10*1024) for each cpu and
the load balancer will think both CPUs are perfectly balanced and won't
move around any tasks. This, however, would yield this bandwidth:
A = 50%
B = 25%
C = 25%
which is not the desired result.
What's changing in the patch?
=============================
- How cpu weights are calculated when CONFIF_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED is
defined (see below)
- API Change
- Two tunables introduced in sysfs (under SCHED_DEBUG) to
control the frequency at which the load balance monitor
thread runs.
The basic change made in this patch is how cpu weight (rq->load.weight) is
calculated. Its now calculated as the summation of group weights on a cpu,
rather than summation of task weights. Weight exerted by a group on a
cpu is dependent on the shares allocated to it and also the number of
tasks the group has on that cpu compared to the total number of
(runnable) tasks the group has in the system.
Let,
W(K,i) = Weight of group K on cpu i
T(K,i) = Task load present in group K's cfs_rq on cpu i
T(K) = Total task load of group K across various cpus
S(K) = Shares allocated to group K
NRCPUS = Number of online cpus in the scheduler domain to
which group K is assigned.
Then,
W(K,i) = S(K) * NRCPUS * T(K,i) / T(K)
A load balance monitor thread is created at bootup, which periodically
runs and adjusts group's weight on each cpu. To avoid its overhead, two
min/max tunables are introduced (under SCHED_DEBUG) to control the rate
at which it runs.
Fixes from: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
- don't start the load_balance_monitor when there is only a single cpu.
- rename the kthread because its currently longer than TASK_COMM_LEN
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This patch changes how the cpu load exerted by fair_sched_class tasks
is calculated. Load exerted by fair_sched_class tasks on a cpu is now
a summation of the group weights, rather than summation of task weights.
Weight exerted by a group on a cpu is dependent on the shares allocated
to it.
This version of patch has a minor impact on code size, but should have
no runtime/functional impact for !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Minor bug fixes for the group scheduler:
- Use a mutex to serialize add/remove of task groups and also when
changing shares of a task group. Use the same mutex when printing
cfs_rq debugging stats for various task groups.
- Use list_for_each_entry_rcu in for_each_leaf_cfs_rq macro (when
walking task group list)
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
