Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753376AbaATKlS (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:41:18 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f171.google.com ([209.85.215.171]:44333 "EHLO mail-ea0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750917AbaATKlN (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:41:13 -0500 From: Juri Lelli To: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de Cc: mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it, juri.lelli@gmail.com, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@gmail.com, liming.wang@windriver.com, jkacur@redhat.com, harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, bruce.ashfield@windriver.com, rob@landley.net Subject: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Add sched_dl documentation Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:40:40 +0100 Message-Id: <1390214440-2711-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dario Faggioli Add in Documentation/scheduler/ some hints about the design choices, the usage and the future possible developments of the sched_dl scheduling class and of the SCHED_DEADLINE policy. Cc: bruce.ashfield@windriver.com Cc: claudio@evidence.eu.com Cc: darren@dvhart.com Cc: dhaval.giani@gmail.com Cc: fchecconi@gmail.com Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com Cc: harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com Cc: hgu1972@gmail.com Cc: insop.song@gmail.com Cc: jkacur@redhat.com Cc: johan.eker@ericsson.com Cc: liming.wang@windriver.com Cc: luca.abeni@unitn.it Cc: michael@amarulasolutions.com Cc: mingo@redhat.com Cc: nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it Cc: oleg@redhat.com Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: p.faure@akatech.ch Cc: rob@landley.net Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: tglx@linutronix.de Cc: tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra --- Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX | 2 + Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt | 189 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/sched/deadline.c | 3 +- 3 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX b/Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX index d2651c4..46702e4 100644 --- a/Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX @@ -10,5 +10,7 @@ sched-nice-design.txt - How and why the scheduler's nice levels are implemented. sched-rt-group.txt - real-time group scheduling. +sched-deadline.txt + - deadline scheduling. sched-stats.txt - information on schedstats (Linux Scheduler Statistics). diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8980de1 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ + Deadline Task Scheduling + ------------------------ + +CONTENTS +======== + + 0. WARNING + 1. Overview + 2. Task scheduling + 2. The Interface + 3. Bandwidth management + 3.1 System-wide settings + 3.2 Task interface + 3.4 Default behavior + 4. Tasks CPU affinity + 4.1 SCHED_DEADLINE and cpusets HOWTO + 5. Future plans + + +0. WARNING +========== + + Fiddling with these settings can result in an unpredictable or even unstable + system behavior. As for -rt (group) scheduling, it is assumed that root users + know what they're doing. + + +1. Overview +=========== + + The SCHED_DEADLINE policy contained inside the sched_dl scheduling class is + basically an implementation of the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) scheduling + algorithm, augmented with a mechanism (called Constant Bandwidth Server, CBS) + that makes it possible to isolate the behavior of tasks between each other. + + +2. Task scheduling +================== + + The typical -deadline task is composed of a computation phase (instance) + which is activated on a periodic or sporadic fashion. The expected (maximum) + duration of such computation is called the task's runtime; the time interval + by which each instance needs to be completed is called the task's relative + deadline. The task's absolute deadline is dynamically calculated as the + time instant a task (or, more properly) activates plus the relative + deadline. + + The EDF[1] algorithm selects the task with the smallest absolute deadline as + the one to be executed first, while the CBS[2,3] ensures that each task runs + for at most its runtime every period, avoiding any interference between + different tasks (bandwidth isolation). + Thanks to this feature, also tasks that do not strictly comply with the + computational model described above can effectively use the new policy. + IOW, there are no limitations on what kind of task can exploit this new + scheduling discipline, even if it must be said that it is particularly + suited for periodic or sporadic tasks that need guarantees on their + timing behavior, e.g., multimedia, streaming, control applications, etc. + + References: + 1 - C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogram- + ming in a hard-real-time environment. Journal of the Association for + Computing Machinery, 20(1), 1973. + 2 - L. Abeni , G. Buttazzo. Integrating Multimedia Applications in Hard + Real-Time Systems. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Real-time Systems + Symposium, 1998. http://retis.sssup.it/~giorgio/paps/1998/rtss98-cbs.pdf + 3 - L. Abeni. Server Mechanisms for Multimedia Applications. ReTiS Lab + Technical Report. http://xoomer.virgilio.it/lucabe72/pubs/tr-98-01.ps + +3. Bandwidth management +======================= + + In order for the -deadline scheduling to be effective and useful, it is + important to have some method to keep the allocation of the available CPU + bandwidth to the tasks under control. + This is usually called "admission control" and if it is not performed at all, + no guarantee can be given on the actual scheduling of the -deadline tasks. + + Since when RT-throttling has been introduced each task group has a bandwidth + associated, calculated as a certain amount of runtime over a period. + Moreover, to make it possible to manipulate such bandwidth, readable/writable + controls have been added to both procfs (for system wide settings) and cgroupfs + (for per-group settings). + Therefore, the same interface is being used for controlling the bandwidth + distrubution to -deadline tasks. + + However, more discussion is needed in order to figure out how we want to manage + SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth at the task group level. Therefore, SCHED_DEADLINE + uses (for now) a less sophisticated, but actually very sensible, mechanism to + ensure that a certain utilization cap is not overcome per each root_domain. + + Another main difference between deadline bandwidth management and RT-throttling + is that -deadline tasks have bandwidth on their own (while -rt ones don't!), + and thus we don't need an higher level throttling mechanism to enforce the + desired bandwidth. + +3.1 System wide settings +------------------------ + + The system wide settings are configured under the /proc virtual file system. + + For now the -rt knobs are used for dl admission control and the -deadline + runtime is accounted against the -rt runtime. We realise that this isn't + entirely desirable; however, it is better to have a small interface for now, + and be able to change it easily later. The ideal situation (see 5.) is to run + -rt tasks from a -deadline server; in which case the -rt bandwidth is a direct + subset of dl_bw. + + This means that, for a root_domain comprising M CPUs, -deadline tasks + can be created while the sum of their bandwidths stays below: + + M * (sched_rt_runtime_us / sched_rt_period_us) + + It is also possible to disable this bandwidth management logic, and + be thus free of oversubscribing the system up to any arbitrary level. + This is done by writing -1 in /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us. + + +3.2 Task interface +------------------ + + Specifying a periodic/sporadic task that executes for a given amount of + runtime at each instance, and that is scheduled according to the urgency of + its own timing constraints needs, in general, a way of declaring: + - a (maximum/typical) instance execution time, + - a minimum interval between consecutive instances, + - a time constraint by which each instance must be completed. + + Therefore: + * a new struct sched_attr, containing all the necessary fields is + provided; + * the new scheduling related syscalls that manipulate it, i.e., + sched_setattr() and sched_getattr() are implemented. + + +3.3 Default behavior +--------------------- + + The default value for SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth is to have rt_runtime equal to + 95000. With rt_period equal to 1000000, by default, it means that -deadline + tasks can use at most 95%, multiplied by the number of CPUs that compose the + root_domain, for each root_domain. + + A -deadline task cannot fork. + +4. Tasks CPU affinity +===================== + + -deadline tasks cannot have an affinity mask smaller that the entire + root_domain they are created on. However, affinities can be specified + through the cpuset facility (Documentation/cgroups/cpusets.txt). + +4.1 SCHED_DEADLINE and cpusets HOWTO +------------------------------------ + + An example of a simple configuration (pin a -deadline task to CPU0) + follows (rt-app is used to create a -deadline task). + + mkdir /dev/cpuset + mount -t cgroup -o cpuset cpuset /dev/cpuset + cd /dev/cpuset + mkdir cpu0 + echo 0 > cpu0/cpuset.cpus + echo 0 > cpu0/cpuset.mems + echo 1 > cpuset.cpu_exclusive + echo 0 > cpuset.sched_load_balance + echo 1 > cpu0/cpuset.cpu_exclusive + echo 1 > cpu0/cpuset.mem_exclusive + echo $$ > cpu0/tasks + rt-app -t 100000:10000:d:0 -D5 (it is now actually superfluous to specify + task affinity) + +5. Future plans +=============== + + Still missing: + + - refinements to deadline inheritance, especially regarding the possibility + of retaining bandwidth isolation among non-interacting tasks. This is + being studied from both theoretical and practical points of view, and + hopefully we should be able to produce some demonstrative code soon; + - (c)group based bandwidth management, and maybe scheduling; + - access control for non-root users (and related security concerns to + address), which is the best way to allow unprivileged use of the mechanisms + and how to prevent non-root users "cheat" the system? + + As already discussed, we are planning also to merge this work with the EDF + throttling patches [https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/23/239] but we still are in + the preliminary phases of the merge and we really seek feedback that would + help us decide on the direction it should take. diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c index 0de2482..0dd5e09 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c @@ -351,7 +351,8 @@ static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, * disrupting the schedulability of the system. Otherwise, we should * refill the runtime and set the deadline a period in the future, * because keeping the current (absolute) deadline of the task would - * result in breaking guarantees promised to other tasks. + * result in breaking guarantees promised to other tasks (refer to + * Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt for more informations). * * This function returns true if: * -- 1.7.9.5 -- 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/