lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Simple Really Fair Scheduler

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> Your math is fairly simple (and that is _good_, just like CFS's
> existing math is simple), it can be summed up in essence as (without
> complicating it with nice-level weighting, for easy
> understandability):
>
> " use the already existing p->sum_exec_runtime 'task runtime' metric
> that CFS maintains, and use that as the key into the rb-tree that
> selects tasks that should be run next. To handle sleeping tasks: keep
> a per-rq sum of all runnable task's ->sum_exec_runtime values and
> start newly woken tasks at the average rq->sum/nr_running value. "
>
> Now your patch does not actually do it that way in a clearly
> discernible manner because lots of changes are intermixed into one big
> patch.
>
> ( please correct me if i got your math wrong. Your patch does not add
> any comments at all to the new code and this slowed down my review
> and analysis of your patch quite considerably. Lack of comments makes
> it harder to see the purpose and makes it harder to notice the
> benefits/tradeoffs involved in each change. )

Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the essence of
the math you have presented via your patch. (it has no nice levels
support yet, to make the math really apparent to everyone interested)

It's a truly simple patch:

3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

and gives good fairness:

$ ./massive_intr 10 10
002510 00000114
002515 00000114
002518 00000114
002514 00000114
002513 00000115
002509 00000115
002517 00000115
002511 00000115
002512 00000115
002516 00000115
Could you please confirm whether the math algorithm you are suggesting
is implemented by this patch roughly correctly? (ignoring nice levels,
i.e. only considering nice-0 tasks, ignoring rounding issues and
Bresenham optimizations, CPU time slicing and other changes.)

Thanks,

Ingo

---
include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
kernel/sched.c | 2 ++
kernel/sched_fair.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Index: linux/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/linux/sched.h
+++ linux/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -904,6 +904,7 @@ struct sched_entity {

u64 exec_start;
u64 sum_exec_runtime;
+ u64 exec_runtime;
u64 prev_sum_exec_runtime;
u64 wait_start_fair;
u64 sleep_start_fair;
Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ struct cfs_rq {

s64 fair_clock;
u64 exec_clock;
+ u64 exec_runtime;
s64 wait_runtime;
u64 sleeper_bonus;
unsigned long wait_runtime_overruns, wait_runtime_underruns;
@@ -1586,6 +1587,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_str
{
p->se.wait_start_fair = 0;
p->se.exec_start = 0;
+ p->se.exec_runtime = 0;
p->se.sum_exec_runtime = 0;
p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime = 0;
p->se.delta_exec = 0;
Index: linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ enum {
};

unsigned int sysctl_sched_features __read_mostly =
- SCHED_FEAT_FAIR_SLEEPERS *1 |
+ SCHED_FEAT_FAIR_SLEEPERS *0 |
SCHED_FEAT_SLEEPER_AVG *0 |
SCHED_FEAT_SLEEPER_LOAD_AVG *1 |
SCHED_FEAT_PRECISE_CPU_LOAD *1 |
@@ -194,6 +194,8 @@ __enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
cfs_rq->nr_running++;
se->on_rq = 1;
+
+ cfs_rq->exec_runtime += se->exec_runtime;
}

static inline void
@@ -205,6 +207,8 @@ __dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
update_load_sub(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
cfs_rq->nr_running--;
se->on_rq = 0;
+
+ cfs_rq->exec_runtime -= se->exec_runtime;
}

static inline struct rb_node *first_fair(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
@@ -347,6 +351,8 @@ __update_curr(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, str

curr->sum_exec_runtime += delta_exec;
cfs_rq->exec_clock += delta_exec;
+ curr->exec_runtime += delta_exec;
+ cfs_rq->exec_runtime += delta_exec;

if (unlikely(!load))
return;
@@ -431,7 +437,7 @@ calc_weighted(unsigned long delta, unsig
*/
static void update_stats_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
- s64 key;
+ u64 key;

/*
* Are we enqueueing a waiting task? (for current tasks
@@ -442,26 +448,7 @@ static void update_stats_enqueue(struct
/*
* Update the key:
*/
- key = cfs_rq->fair_clock;
-
- /*
- * Optimize the common nice 0 case:
- */
- if (likely(se->load.weight == NICE_0_LOAD)) {
- key -= se->wait_runtime;
- } else {
- u64 tmp;
-
- if (se->wait_runtime < 0) {
- tmp = -se->wait_runtime;
- key += (tmp * se->load.inv_weight) >>
- (WMULT_SHIFT - NICE_0_SHIFT);
- } else {
- tmp = se->wait_runtime;
- key -= (tmp * se->load.inv_weight) >>
- (WMULT_SHIFT - NICE_0_SHIFT);
- }
- }
+ key = se->exec_runtime;

se->fair_key = key;
}
@@ -583,6 +570,20 @@ static void __enqueue_sleeper(struct cfs
cfs_rq->sleeper_bonus += delta_fair;
}

+/*
+ * Newly woken tasks are put into the "middle" of all runnable
+ * task's current runtime:
+ */
+static u64 avg_exec_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
+{
+ u64 avg_exec_runtime = cfs_rq->exec_runtime;
+
+ if (cfs_rq->nr_running)
+ do_div(avg_exec_runtime, cfs_rq->nr_running);
+
+ return avg_exec_runtime;
+}
+
static void enqueue_sleeper(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = task_of(se);
@@ -640,8 +641,10 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, st
*/
update_curr(cfs_rq);

- if (wakeup)
+ if (wakeup) {
+ se->exec_runtime = avg_exec_runtime(cfs_rq);
enqueue_sleeper(cfs_rq, se);
+ }

update_stats_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
__enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
@@ -1126,6 +1129,7 @@ static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq,
schedstat_add(cfs_rq, wait_runtime, se->wait_runtime);
}

+ se->exec_runtime = avg_exec_runtime(cfs_rq);
__enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
}

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-02 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site