Subject: Re: Premptible Kernels and Timer Frequencies
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: AndyLiebman@aol.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <13f.1f173bf2.3093ada5@aol.com>
References: <13f.1f173bf2.3093ada5@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Kihon Technologies
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:06:26 -0400
Message-Id: <1130540786.6169.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 10242
Lines: 218

On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 12:36 -0400, AndyLiebman@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks to all responsible for getting the 2.6.14  kernel out quickly. There 
> are many important bugfixes and features in this  kernel that are relevant to 
> my work. I look forward to using it starting today!  
> 
> I have a request. Would it be possible for a knowledgeable person to  write 
> up a little description of some of the following kernel options and what  they 
> REALLY mean and how to use them? I think it would be great to put a brief  
> "white paper" on the kernel.org site. 

I'll respond a little here, but this is far from being a white paper.
Although, if I have time, I'll write one.  My involvement with Linux
today is mostly with Ingo's RT patch that really brings down the
latencies of the kernel.

> 
> In specific, I am referring to the  following: 
> 
> Premptible Kernel Model
> No  Premption

Simple.  If a process is in the kernel (via a system call) it will not
be preempted by another process.  There are points in the kernel where a
process will need to wait for an event (like memory swapping in) and
will call schedule to let other processes run, instead of a busy loop.

The problem with this is that when an interrupt comes in and wakes up a
higher priority process. That high priority process needs to wait till
the lower priority process either explicitly calls schedule or returns
to user land.

> Voluntary Premption

There are several points in the kernel that "might schedule".  Like
allocating more memory, the kernel may need to swap out memory to get
more available memory, so this may or may not schedule.

With Voluntary Preemption, these points always check to see if it should
schedule because another higher process is waiting to run.  So
basically, if a higher priority process wants to run on a CPU that is
currently running a lower priority process that happens to be in the
kernel. The "need_resched" flag is set on the lower priority process and
when one of these "voluntary preemption" points are hit, it will call
schedule.  The high priority process still needs to wait till one of
these points are hit, or the process actually calls schedule, or it goes
back to user space.

> Premptible Kernel (Low-latency Desktop)

This is currently the lowest latency selection in the vanilla kernel.
When this is turned on, a high priority process that is woken up, will
preempt the currently running lower priority process even if it is in
the kernel.

The trick here, is that there are SMP protected areas in the kernel
protected by spin_locks.  These usually are only for multiprocessor
machines, but when you have a fully preemptible kernel, these areas must
also be protected.  So, on a uni-processor machine without "Preempt
Kernel", these spin_locks are optimized out (no-ops).  But with "Preempt
Kernel", these areas prevent preemption from occurring. So now the high
priority process can preempt the lower priority process anytime it is
not in one of theses areas protected by a spin_lock.  If the lower
priority process is in one of these areas, the higher priority process
only needs to wait for that process to leave this area, which is usually
a very short time, since on SMP this would cause a CPU to spin in a busy
loop, and Linux tries to make these areas small.

This explanation is a little simple but gets the gist of what is
happening.

As for which one is best for you.  It matters what type of latencies you
want.  That is, do you want better reaction times for higher priority
processes.  Without the user caring about priorities, this usually means
the most interactive tasks, where servers that serve web pages and such
probably don't care about one process over the other. But a gamer might
be more interested in his game having higher priority than some
background job, and having a lower latency in shooting the monster.
 
> 
> Prempt The Big Kernel  Lock

The Big Kernel Lock is an old relic that I wish would go away.  Before
spin_locks, everything was protected with this behemoth.  One lock to
rule them all!  So basically, any time you needed to protect some data,
you would grab this lock.  So on SMP machines, CPUs were waiting around
a lot to handle some data because some other CPU was working on some
totally separate data.  This obviously was very inefficient.  Well,
fortunately, the kernel developers implemented a fine grain locking
(spin_locks) and got rid of most of the Big Kernel Lock.  But
unfortunately, it is still used in some pretty scary parts of the
kernel.  Scary, because it will be difficult to remove this lock for in
favor of smaller variants.

This lock is different than the spin_locks by the fact that you can call
schedule holding this lock.  Schedule will simply let go of this lock
for the scheduling process.  When the process is scheduled again, it
will try to retake the lock.  Also, a process may grab this lock as many
times as it wants while holding it, as long as it releases it the same
amount of times.

To preempt while this lock is held, takes some special care, since you
don't want to let go of this lock when it is being preempted.  So work
is done to prevent the scheduler from releasing this lock when it calls
schedule because of preemption and not because of the process
voluntarily scheduling.  Also care is taken when retaking the lock when
woken up in the scheduler since the process might not get it because a
process it just preempted has it.

So this is more complex, and the developers decided to let people turn
it off if they are nervous about the complexity on critical servers.

> 
> Timer Frequency
> 100 Hz
> 250 Hz
> 1000 Hz

Again, this has to do with response times and latencies.  Processes are
given time slices that they can run in. These are broken up into
"jiffies".  A jiffy is defined in the kernel as 1/HZ second.  So at
100Hz, a jiffy is 10ms, 250Hz 4ms and 1000Hz 1ms.

Also the resolution of sleeps and timers are done at the jiffy level
(with current vanilla Linux).  So at 100Hz a timer set to go off in
100ms is most likely to go off in 110ms where as with the 1000Hz it has
a better probability of going off in 101ms.  Note, this is not a good
example, because latencies usually cause timers and such to not be
predictable in how close to the actual time it goes off.  It only needs
to guarantee that it doesn't go off early.

Also note, the better the latency, the higher the over head.  This is
pretty much true in all cases.  For HZ = 1000, the timer interrupt needs
to go off 1000 times a second, which will cause 900 more interrupts to
go off in that second than for HZ = 100.

> 
> 
> I think it would be helpful for  the whole Linux community to get better 
> hints about the theoretical optimal  settings for various types of systems. Saying 
> that one option is good for  "desktops" and another is good for "servers" is 
> a start, but I'm sure that with  just a few more words, you could be much more 
> helpful to users who are trying to  decide what options to select for 
> compiling. 

I'm not a server maintainer or much of a gamer, so someone else can
explain what is best for them.  I'm more of the embedded or special
purpose tool guy.  But I do understand what these things actually mean.

> 
> For instance, I have a  number of file servers that send video files out 
> simultaneously to multiple  video editing systems. Each of 10-20 video editing 
> systems could be reading  files from the server (or writing files to the server) 
> at data rates ranging  from 3.5 MB/sec up to 30,40 or 50 MB/sec. 
> 
> The server ITSELF is rarely  running any applications other than Samba, 
> Netatalk, Software RAID 0, NIC  drivers, and fairly low-CPU usage things like the 
> UPS monitor, 3ware Drivers for  Hardware RAID 5, and KDE (which is hardly ever 
> getting any input from users).  
> 
> We get really great performance with the 2.6.12 and 2.6.10 kernels. And  
> typically, CPU usage ranges from 10-20 perecent with many client systems going.  
> However, we are wondering if it is worth it to try the Preemptible Kernels for  
> greater responsiveness and perhaps support for more simultaneous streams, 
> which  MUST arrive at the video editing system on time or we get "dropped 
> frames".  

Have you taken a look at Ingo Molnar's PREEMPT_RT?

http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/

This has the best in low latency than any of the above options.  But I
must also warn you that the lower the latency, the performance will
usually take a slight hit as well. But we try to keep that at a minimum.

> 
> I'm sure it's a similar situtation to Video On Demand servers only our  data 
> rates are much higher per client, so we can't support that many clients as  a 
> VOD system. 
> 
> We have tested compiling the 2.6.12 kernel with both  voluntary preemption 
> and low-latency preemption. Both seem to work fine, but we  haven't 
> stress-tested them yet because we were waiting for the 2.6.14 kernel to  come out. 
> 
> Could we get into any danger with the preemptible kernels if  the system load 
> gets heavy? 

Preemptible kernels are suppose to work _better_ on higher load.
Performance goes slightly down, but predictability goes way up.

> 
> And now that the Timer frequency option has  been added, what would be 
> optimal for such a video server that is not itself  running any taxing applications? 

I'm not sure if that would effect it. If it is interrupt driven, the
timer frequency is of no use. If the application is setting up its own
frequency, then that would be a different story.

> 
> Hope to hear from one of the "big guys"  on this. 

I'm not a "big guy" ;-) but I'm pretty active with Ingo's RT patch.  I
just submit bug fixes for the vanilla guys.

> 
> Thanks again for all your great work. 

Hope this explains things a bit better.  I've been meaning to write up
something about Ingo's patch to explain things in his kernel options
just like this.  When I get some time, maybe I'll do that too.

-- Steve


-
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/