diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 43 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt | 119 |
2 files changed, 119 insertions, 43 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt index af50f9bbe68e..4d880b3d1f35 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | |||
@@ -1014,49 +1014,6 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file | |||
1014 | 1014 | ||
1015 | mga= [HW,DRM] | 1015 | mga= [HW,DRM] |
1016 | 1016 | ||
1017 | migration_cost= | ||
1018 | [KNL,SMP] debug: override scheduler migration costs | ||
1019 | Format: <level-1-usecs>,<level-2-usecs>,... | ||
1020 | This debugging option can be used to override the | ||
1021 | default scheduler migration cost matrix. The numbers | ||
1022 | are indexed by 'CPU domain distance'. | ||
1023 | E.g. migration_cost=1000,2000,3000 on an SMT NUMA | ||
1024 | box will set up an intra-core migration cost of | ||
1025 | 1 msec, an inter-core migration cost of 2 msecs, | ||
1026 | and an inter-node migration cost of 3 msecs. | ||
1027 | |||
1028 | WARNING: using the wrong values here can break | ||
1029 | scheduler performance, so it's only for scheduler | ||
1030 | development purposes, not production environments. | ||
1031 | |||
1032 | migration_debug= | ||
1033 | [KNL,SMP] migration cost auto-detect verbosity | ||
1034 | Format=<0|1|2> | ||
1035 | If a system's migration matrix reported at bootup | ||
1036 | seems erroneous then this option can be used to | ||
1037 | increase verbosity of the detection process. | ||
1038 | We default to 0 (no extra messages), 1 will print | ||
1039 | some more information, and 2 will be really | ||
1040 | verbose (probably only useful if you also have a | ||
1041 | serial console attached to the system). | ||
1042 | |||
1043 | migration_factor= | ||
1044 | [KNL,SMP] multiply/divide migration costs by a factor | ||
1045 | Format=<percent> | ||
1046 | This debug option can be used to proportionally | ||
1047 | increase or decrease the auto-detected migration | ||
1048 | costs for all entries of the migration matrix. | ||
1049 | E.g. migration_factor=150 will increase migration | ||
1050 | costs by 50%. (and thus the scheduler will be less | ||
1051 | eager migrating cache-hot tasks) | ||
1052 | migration_factor=80 will decrease migration costs | ||
1053 | by 20%. (thus the scheduler will be more eager to | ||
1054 | migrate tasks) | ||
1055 | |||
1056 | WARNING: using the wrong values here can break | ||
1057 | scheduler performance, so it's only for scheduler | ||
1058 | development purposes, not production environments. | ||
1059 | |||
1060 | mousedev.tap_time= | 1017 | mousedev.tap_time= |
1061 | [MOUSE] Maximum time between finger touching and | 1018 | [MOUSE] Maximum time between finger touching and |
1062 | leaving touchpad surface for touch to be considered | 1019 | leaving touchpad surface for touch to be considered |
diff --git a/Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt b/Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..16feebb7bdc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ | |||
1 | |||
2 | This is the CFS scheduler. | ||
3 | |||
4 | 80% of CFS's design can be summed up in a single sentence: CFS basically | ||
5 | models an "ideal, precise multi-tasking CPU" on real hardware. | ||
6 | |||
7 | "Ideal multi-tasking CPU" is a (non-existent :-)) CPU that has 100% | ||
8 | physical power and which can run each task at precise equal speed, in | ||
9 | parallel, each at 1/nr_running speed. For example: if there are 2 tasks | ||
10 | running then it runs each at 50% physical power - totally in parallel. | ||
11 | |||
12 | On real hardware, we can run only a single task at once, so while that | ||
13 | one task runs, the other tasks that are waiting for the CPU are at a | ||
14 | disadvantage - the current task gets an unfair amount of CPU time. In | ||
15 | CFS this fairness imbalance is expressed and tracked via the per-task | ||
16 | p->wait_runtime (nanosec-unit) value. "wait_runtime" is the amount of | ||
17 | time the task should now run on the CPU for it to become completely fair | ||
18 | and balanced. | ||
19 | |||
20 | ( small detail: on 'ideal' hardware, the p->wait_runtime value would | ||
21 | always be zero - no task would ever get 'out of balance' from the | ||
22 | 'ideal' share of CPU time. ) | ||
23 | |||
24 | CFS's task picking logic is based on this p->wait_runtime value and it | ||
25 | is thus very simple: it always tries to run the task with the largest | ||
26 | p->wait_runtime value. In other words, CFS tries to run the task with | ||
27 | the 'gravest need' for more CPU time. So CFS always tries to split up | ||
28 | CPU time between runnable tasks as close to 'ideal multitasking | ||
29 | hardware' as possible. | ||
30 | |||
31 | Most of the rest of CFS's design just falls out of this really simple | ||
32 | concept, with a few add-on embellishments like nice levels, | ||
33 | multiprocessing and various algorithm variants to recognize sleepers. | ||
34 | |||
35 | In practice it works like this: the system runs a task a bit, and when | ||
36 | the task schedules (or a scheduler tick happens) the task's CPU usage is | ||
37 | 'accounted for': the (small) time it just spent using the physical CPU | ||
38 | is deducted from p->wait_runtime. [minus the 'fair share' it would have | ||
39 | gotten anyway]. Once p->wait_runtime gets low enough so that another | ||
40 | task becomes the 'leftmost task' of the time-ordered rbtree it maintains | ||
41 | (plus a small amount of 'granularity' distance relative to the leftmost | ||
42 | task so that we do not over-schedule tasks and trash the cache) then the | ||
43 | new leftmost task is picked and the current task is preempted. | ||
44 | |||
45 | The rq->fair_clock value tracks the 'CPU time a runnable task would have | ||
46 | fairly gotten, had it been runnable during that time'. So by using | ||
47 | rq->fair_clock values we can accurately timestamp and measure the | ||
48 | 'expected CPU time' a task should have gotten. All runnable tasks are | ||
49 | sorted in the rbtree by the "rq->fair_clock - p->wait_runtime" key, and | ||
50 | CFS picks the 'leftmost' task and sticks to it. As the system progresses | ||
51 | forwards, newly woken tasks are put into the tree more and more to the | ||
52 | right - slowly but surely giving a chance for every task to become the | ||
53 | 'leftmost task' and thus get on the CPU within a deterministic amount of | ||
54 | time. | ||
55 | |||
56 | Some implementation details: | ||
57 | |||
58 | - the introduction of Scheduling Classes: an extensible hierarchy of | ||
59 | scheduler modules. These modules encapsulate scheduling policy | ||
60 | details and are handled by the scheduler core without the core | ||
61 | code assuming about them too much. | ||
62 | |||
63 | - sched_fair.c implements the 'CFS desktop scheduler': it is a | ||
64 | replacement for the vanilla scheduler's SCHED_OTHER interactivity | ||
65 | code. | ||
66 | |||
67 | I'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here: | ||
68 | he has proven via RSDL/SD that 'fair scheduling' is possible and that | ||
69 | it results in better desktop scheduling. Kudos Con! | ||
70 | |||
71 | The CFS patch uses a completely different approach and implementation | ||
72 | from RSDL/SD. My goal was to make CFS's interactivity quality exceed | ||
73 | that of RSDL/SD, which is a high standard to meet :-) Testing | ||
74 | feedback is welcome to decide this one way or another. [ and, in any | ||
75 | case, all of SD's logic could be added via a kernel/sched_sd.c module | ||
76 | as well, if Con is interested in such an approach. ] | ||
77 | |||
78 | CFS's design is quite radical: it does not use runqueues, it uses a | ||
79 | time-ordered rbtree to build a 'timeline' of future task execution, | ||
80 | and thus has no 'array switch' artifacts (by which both the vanilla | ||
81 | scheduler and RSDL/SD are affected). | ||
82 | |||
83 | CFS uses nanosecond granularity accounting and does not rely on any | ||
84 | jiffies or other HZ detail. Thus the CFS scheduler has no notion of | ||
85 | 'timeslices' and has no heuristics whatsoever. There is only one | ||
86 | central tunable: | ||
87 | |||
88 | /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns | ||
89 | |||
90 | which can be used to tune the scheduler from 'desktop' (low | ||
91 | latencies) to 'server' (good batching) workloads. It defaults to a | ||
92 | setting suitable for desktop workloads. SCHED_BATCH is handled by the | ||
93 | CFS scheduler module too. | ||
94 | |||
95 | Due to its design, the CFS scheduler is not prone to any of the | ||
96 | 'attacks' that exist today against the heuristics of the stock | ||
97 | scheduler: fiftyp.c, thud.c, chew.c, ring-test.c, massive_intr.c all | ||
98 | work fine and do not impact interactivity and produce the expected | ||
99 | behavior. | ||
100 | |||
101 | the CFS scheduler has a much stronger handling of nice levels and | ||
102 | SCHED_BATCH: both types of workloads should be isolated much more | ||
103 | agressively than under the vanilla scheduler. | ||
104 | |||
105 | ( another detail: due to nanosec accounting and timeline sorting, | ||
106 | sched_yield() support is very simple under CFS, and in fact under | ||
107 | CFS sched_yield() behaves much better than under any other | ||
108 | scheduler i have tested so far. ) | ||
109 | |||
110 | - sched_rt.c implements SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR semantics, in a simpler | ||
111 | way than the vanilla scheduler does. It uses 100 runqueues (for all | ||
112 | 100 RT priority levels, instead of 140 in the vanilla scheduler) | ||
113 | and it needs no expired array. | ||
114 | |||
115 | - reworked/sanitized SMP load-balancing: the runqueue-walking | ||
116 | assumptions are gone from the load-balancing code now, and | ||
117 | iterators of the scheduling modules are used. The balancing code got | ||
118 | quite a bit simpler as a result. | ||
119 | |||