Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752134AbaATL0f (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:26:35 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:32997 "EHLO mail-lb0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750782AbaATL0d (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:26:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:24:42 +0100 From: Henrik Austad To: Juri Lelli Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, 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, 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: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Add sched_dl documentation Message-ID: <20140120112442.GA8907@austad.us> References: <1390214440-2711-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1390214440-2711-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:40:40AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > From: Dario Faggioli >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/00-INDEX b/Documentation/scheduler/0= 0-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/s= cheduler/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 > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + 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 > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + Fiddling with these settings can result in an unpredictable or even uns= table > + system behavior. As for -rt (group) scheduling, it is assumed that root= users > + know what they're doing. > + > + > +1. Overview > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + The SCHED_DEADLINE policy contained inside the sched_dl scheduling clas= s is > + basically an implementation of the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) schedu= ling > + algorithm, augmented with a mechanism (called Constant Bandwidth Server= , CBS) > + that makes it possible to isolate the behavior of tasks between each ot= her. Why not something along the lines of giving a task a guaranteed slice of=20 the CPU as well as making sure that a task takes no more than a given=20 slice? I.e. making the point of a lower as well as an upper limit of CPU=20 usage. > +2. Task scheduling > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + The typical -deadline task is composed of a computation phase (instance) > + which is activated on a periodic or sporadic fashion. The expected (max= imum) > + duration of such computation is called the task's runtime; the time int= erval > + by which each instance needs to be completed is called the task's relat= ive > + deadline. The task's absolute deadline is dynamically calculated as the > + time instant a task (or, more properly) activates plus the relative > + deadline. activates - released? Since real-time papers from different rt-campus around the academia insist= =20 on using *slightly* different terminology, perhaps add a short dictionary= =20 for some of the more common terms? D: relative deadline, typically N ms after release d: absolute deadline, the physical time when a given instance of a job=20 needs to be completed R: relative release time, for periodic tasks, this is typically 'every N=20 ms' r: absolute release time C: Worst-case execution time ...you get the idea. Perhaps too academic? > + The EDF[1] algorithm selects the task with the smallest absolute deadli= ne 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. I assume that ties are broken arbitrarily and that a running task is not=20 preempted for another task with equal deadline. Correct? This would be a nice point to include in this doc methinks. > + References: > + 1 - C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogra= m- > + ming in a hard-real-time environment. Journal of the Association f= or > + 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-c= bs.pdf > + 3 - L. Abeni. Server Mechanisms for Multimedia Applications. ReTiS Lab > + Technical Report. http://xoomer.virgilio.it/lucabe72/pubs/tr-98-01= =2Eps > + > +3. Bandwidth management > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + 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 C= PU > + bandwidth to the tasks under control. > + This is usually called "admission control" and if it is not performed a= t all, > + no guarantee can be given on the actual scheduling of the -deadline tas= ks. > + > + Since when RT-throttling has been introduced each task group has a band= width > + associated, calculated as a certain amount of runtime over a period. > + Moreover, to make it possible to manipulate such bandwidth, readable/wr= itable > + 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 bandwid= th > + distrubution to -deadline tasks. > + > + However, more discussion is needed in order to figure out how we want t= o manage > + SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth at the task group level. Therefore, SCHED_DEAD= LINE > + uses (for now) a less sophisticated, but actually very sensible, mechan= ism to > + ensure that a certain utilization cap is not overcome per each root_dom= ain. > + > + Another main difference between deadline bandwidth management and RT-th= rottling > + 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 sy= stem. > + > + For now the -rt knobs are used for dl admission control and the -deadli= ne > + 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 urgenc= y 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 eq= ual to > + 95000. With rt_period equal to 1000000, by default, it means that -dead= line ^^^^ This seems to be 9.5% to me ;) > + tasks can use at most 95%, multiplied by the number of CPUs that compos= e the > + root_domain, for each root_domain. > + > + A -deadline task cannot fork. > + > +4. Tasks CPU affinity > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + -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). Does this mean that sched_deadline is a somewhat global implementation? Or= =20 rather, at what point in time will sched_deadline take all cpus in a set=20 into consideration and when will it only look at the current CPU? Where is= =20 the line drawn between global and fully partitioned? Also, how do you account the budget when a resource holder is boosted in=20 order to release a resource? (IIRC, you use BWI, right?) > +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 speci= fy > + task affinity) > + > +5. Future plans > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > + > + Still missing: > + > + - refinements to deadline inheritance, especially regarding the possib= ility > + 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 mec= hanisms > + 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 a= re in > + the preliminary phases of the merge and we really seek feedback that wo= uld > + 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_entit= y *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: > * > --=20 > 1.7.9.5 >=20 > -- > 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/ --=20 Henrik Austad --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLdB3oACgkQ6k5VT6v45lnpuACfckAKMe7aWV79TCOIsYhwJuwY 1G0AniEZ3qj+/6nm4Z0kgNgdgrokfPac =q9fh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8-- -- 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/