diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/sched-design.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/sched-design.txt | 165 |
1 files changed, 165 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/sched-design.txt b/Documentation/sched-design.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9d04e7bbf45f --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/sched-design.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ | |||
1 | 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 are the following mechanizms: | ||
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 | ||