Messages in this thread | | | From | Peter Williams <> | Date | Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:26:38 +1000 | Subject | [PATCH 0/4] sched: Add CPU rate caps |
| |
These patches implement CPU usage rate limits for tasks.
Although the rlimit mechanism already has a CPU usage limit (RLIMIT_CPU) it is a total usage limit and therefore (to my mind) not very useful. These patches provide an alternative whereby the (recent) average CPU usage rate of a task can be limited to a (per task) specified proportion of a single CPU's capacity. The limits are specified in parts per thousand and come in two varieties -- hard and soft. The difference between the two is that the system tries to enforce hard caps regardless of the other demand for CPU resources but allows soft caps to be exceeded if there are spare CPU resources available. By default, tasks will have both caps set to 1000 (i.e. no limit) but newly forked tasks will inherit any caps that have been imposed on their parent from the parent. The mimimim soft cap allowed is 0 (which effectively puts the task in the background) and the minimim hard cap allowed is 1.
Care has been taken to minimize the overhead inflicted on tasks that have no caps and my tests using kernbench indicate that it is hidden in the noise.
Note:
1. Caps are not enforced for SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR tasks.
2. This versions incorporates improvements and bug fixes as a result of feedback from an earlier post. Special thanks to Con Kolivas whose suggestions with respect to improved methods for avoiding starvation and priority inversion have enabled cap enforcement to be stricter.
3. This patch is against 2.6.17-rc6-mm2.
4. Overhead Measurements. To measure the implications for overhead introduced by these patches kernbench was used on a dual 500Mhz Centrino SMP system. Runs were done for a kernel without these patches applied, one with the patches applied but no caps being used and one with the patches applied and running kernbench with a soft cap of zero (which would be inherited by all its children).
Average Optimal -j 8 Load Run:
Vanilla Patch Applied Soft Cap 0%
Elapsed Time 1056.1 (1.92) 1048.2 (0.62) 1064.1 (1.59) User Time 1908.1 (1.09) 1895.2 (1.30) 1926.6 (1.39) System Time 181.7 (0.60) 177.5 (0.74) 173.8 (1.07) Total 2089.8 2072.7 2100.4 Percent CPU 197.6 (0.55) 197.0 (0) 197.0 (0) Context Switches 49253.6 (136.31) 48881.4 (92.03) 92490.8 (163.71) Sleeps 28038.8 (228.11) 28136.0 (250.65) 25769.4 (280.40)
As can be seen there is no significant overhead penalty for having these patches applied and leaving them unused (in fact, based on these numbers, there's actually a small improvement). Similarly, the overhead for running kernbench as a background (soft cap of zero) job is not significant. As expected, the context switches for the background run are double (due to the fact that ANY OTHER task running on the machine would be able to preempt the kernbench tasks) but have not seriously effected the CPU usage statistics. The similarity of the "Percent CPU" numbers indicate that load balancing hasn't been adversely effected.
5. Code size measurements:
Vanilla kernel:
text data bss dec hex filename 33800 4689 296 38785 9781 sched.o 2554 79 0 2633 a49 mutex.o 12076 2632 0 14708 3974 base.o
Patches applied:
text data bss dec hex filename 36870 4721 296 41887 a39f sched.o 2630 79 0 2709 a95 mutex.o 13011 2920 0 15931 3e3b base.o
Indicating that the size cost of the patch proper is about 3 kilobytes and the procfs costs about another 1.2 kilobytes.
Signed-off-by: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.com.au>
-- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |