lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Scheduling problem with 2.4?
    From
    Date
    Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:

    > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:16:33PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
    > >
    > > This is the danger of pre-emption based upon dynamic
    > > priorities. You can get cases where two processes each are
    > > permitted to make a very small amount of progress in
    > > alternation. This can happen just as well with large writes as
    > > small ones, the amount of data is irrelevent, it's the amount of
    > > CPU time that's important, or to put it another way, it's how far
    > > a process can get without suffering a context switch.
    > >
    > > I suggest that a process be permitted to use up at least some
    > > portion of its timeslice exempt from any pre-emption based solely
    > > on dynamic priorities.
    >
    > that's the issue yes. but then when a multithreaded app sends a
    > signal to another process it can take up to this "x" timeslice
    > portion before the signal will run (I mean in UP). Same goes for
    > mouse clicks etc.. 1msec for mouse clicks should not be noticeable
    > though. And over all I don't see a real big issue in the current
    > code.

    Well, the problem that we have is excessive synchronous context
    switching, so the solution might be to simply throttle on that. It's
    no problem the first few times round, but after some time the
    scheduler should recognize the pattern and clamp down. So I'd propose
    that we give a process that yields synchronously while it could be
    ready to run an accumulating priority boost that gets wasted pretty
    fast when the process does a full wait (aka the pipe is full) or is
    preempted.

    That is, have the scheduler penalize/throttle application-visible
    context switches between runnable processes. On particular if the
    processes are dependent on one another, like in the case of the pipe.
    We can proud ourselves to optimize the kernel to make a context switch
    in 1us, but if each context switch occurs 2ms of avoidable overhead in
    our application, the bottom line to the user will remain ugly.

    > To try it probably the simpler way to add a need_resched_timeout
    > along to need_resched, and to honour the need_resched only when the
    > timeout triggers, immediate need_resched will set the timeout = jiffies
    > so it'll trigger immediatly, the timer interrupt will check it. The
    > reschedule_idle on a non idle cpu will be the only one to set the
    > timeout. Effectively I'm curious to see what will happen. Not all archs
    > would need to check against it (the entry.S code is the main reader of
    > need_resched), it'll be an hint only and idle() for sure must not check
    > it at all. this would guarantee minimal timeslice reserved up to 1/HZ by
    > setting the timeout to jiffies + 2 (jiffies + 1 would return a mean of
    > 1/HZ/2 but the worst case would be ~0, in practice even + 1 would be
    > enough) Does anybody think this could have a value? If yes I can make a
    > quick hack to see what happens.

    We probably need not immediate action. A good test case is an xterm,
    I guess, and I noticed that od has an option for limiting its length.

    So I propose that comparing the output of

    time od -vN 100k /dev/zero

    to that of

    time od -vN 100k /dev/zero|dd obs=16k

    in an xterm should provide some idea about _typical_ overhead occured
    in an _application_ due to excessive context switching.

    If you want to get really nasty, you can compare to
    time od -vN 100k /dev/zero|dd obs=1

    Note that in all of these cases, it is by far the xterm that is
    wasting the lion's share of the processing time (and so you need to
    take a look at the _real_ time expended, since xterm will not be
    measured in the time command), the kernel people and the generating
    processes will wash their hands off any guilt: "_we_ do our work
    efficiently and give xterm all the time of the world to be able to
    empty the pipe, and let it take all the time it needs to without
    pushing it". Only that xterm could work much more efficiently if one
    pushed it by piling things into the pipe.

    Another silly exercise is the following:

    time od -v /dev/zero|dd obs=1

    in an xterm. Keep it running. Now in a different term, enter

    while true;do :;done

    The above xterm will freeze while the interactive shell still has its
    bonus, and then will start working again, at a much higher speed than
    when it has an idle CPU at its disposal.

    Kill off the busy loop, and the xterm gets slow again.

    Come to think of it, I have witnessed the phenomenon of "slow start
    xterms" that get ragingly more efficient after several screenfulls
    when they _can't_ keep up on a busy system for years on a large
    variety of Unices with single CPU. It is some of those quirks one
    does not think about too much.

    So I repeat: I should think a fast accumulating scheduling malus for a
    synchronous context switch to a process woken by an event from a still
    runnable process should be appropriate. If anybody can think of a
    scheme that magically converges to a good tradeoff between average
    fill level of a pipe and estimated processing overhead by the
    application at the receiving end, of course this would be appreciated.

    The aim would be that running an additional

    while true;do :;done

    should not usually be able to speed up the _real_ time performance of
    an unrelated task.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
    -
    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: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.045 / U:121.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site