mirror of
https://github.com/FEX-Emu/linux.git
synced 2024-12-16 05:50:19 +00:00
5e7eaade55
add Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
120 lines
5.8 KiB
Plaintext
120 lines
5.8 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
This is the CFS scheduler.
|
|
|
|
80% of CFS's design can be summed up in a single sentence: CFS basically
|
|
models an "ideal, precise multi-tasking CPU" on real hardware.
|
|
|
|
"Ideal multi-tasking CPU" is a (non-existent :-)) CPU that has 100%
|
|
physical power and which can run each task at precise equal speed, in
|
|
parallel, each at 1/nr_running speed. For example: if there are 2 tasks
|
|
running then it runs each at 50% physical power - totally in parallel.
|
|
|
|
On real hardware, we can run only a single task at once, so while that
|
|
one task runs, the other tasks that are waiting for the CPU are at a
|
|
disadvantage - the current task gets an unfair amount of CPU time. In
|
|
CFS this fairness imbalance is expressed and tracked via the per-task
|
|
p->wait_runtime (nanosec-unit) value. "wait_runtime" is the amount of
|
|
time the task should now run on the CPU for it to become completely fair
|
|
and balanced.
|
|
|
|
( small detail: on 'ideal' hardware, the p->wait_runtime value would
|
|
always be zero - no task would ever get 'out of balance' from the
|
|
'ideal' share of CPU time. )
|
|
|
|
CFS's task picking logic is based on this p->wait_runtime value and it
|
|
is thus very simple: it always tries to run the task with the largest
|
|
p->wait_runtime value. In other words, CFS tries to run the task with
|
|
the 'gravest need' for more CPU time. So CFS always tries to split up
|
|
CPU time between runnable tasks as close to 'ideal multitasking
|
|
hardware' as possible.
|
|
|
|
Most of the rest of CFS's design just falls out of this really simple
|
|
concept, with a few add-on embellishments like nice levels,
|
|
multiprocessing and various algorithm variants to recognize sleepers.
|
|
|
|
In practice it works like this: the system runs a task a bit, and when
|
|
the task schedules (or a scheduler tick happens) the task's CPU usage is
|
|
'accounted for': the (small) time it just spent using the physical CPU
|
|
is deducted from p->wait_runtime. [minus the 'fair share' it would have
|
|
gotten anyway]. Once p->wait_runtime gets low enough so that another
|
|
task becomes the 'leftmost task' of the time-ordered rbtree it maintains
|
|
(plus a small amount of 'granularity' distance relative to the leftmost
|
|
task so that we do not over-schedule tasks and trash the cache) then the
|
|
new leftmost task is picked and the current task is preempted.
|
|
|
|
The rq->fair_clock value tracks the 'CPU time a runnable task would have
|
|
fairly gotten, had it been runnable during that time'. So by using
|
|
rq->fair_clock values we can accurately timestamp and measure the
|
|
'expected CPU time' a task should have gotten. All runnable tasks are
|
|
sorted in the rbtree by the "rq->fair_clock - p->wait_runtime" key, and
|
|
CFS picks the 'leftmost' task and sticks to it. As the system progresses
|
|
forwards, newly woken tasks are put into the tree more and more to the
|
|
right - slowly but surely giving a chance for every task to become the
|
|
'leftmost task' and thus get on the CPU within a deterministic amount of
|
|
time.
|
|
|
|
Some implementation details:
|
|
|
|
- the introduction of Scheduling Classes: an extensible hierarchy of
|
|
scheduler modules. These modules encapsulate scheduling policy
|
|
details and are handled by the scheduler core without the core
|
|
code assuming about them too much.
|
|
|
|
- sched_fair.c implements the 'CFS desktop scheduler': it is a
|
|
replacement for the vanilla scheduler's SCHED_OTHER interactivity
|
|
code.
|
|
|
|
I'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here:
|
|
he has proven via RSDL/SD that 'fair scheduling' is possible and that
|
|
it results in better desktop scheduling. Kudos Con!
|
|
|
|
The CFS patch uses a completely different approach and implementation
|
|
from RSDL/SD. My goal was to make CFS's interactivity quality exceed
|
|
that of RSDL/SD, which is a high standard to meet :-) Testing
|
|
feedback is welcome to decide this one way or another. [ and, in any
|
|
case, all of SD's logic could be added via a kernel/sched_sd.c module
|
|
as well, if Con is interested in such an approach. ]
|
|
|
|
CFS's design is quite radical: it does not use runqueues, it uses a
|
|
time-ordered rbtree to build a 'timeline' of future task execution,
|
|
and thus has no 'array switch' artifacts (by which both the vanilla
|
|
scheduler and RSDL/SD are affected).
|
|
|
|
CFS uses nanosecond granularity accounting and does not rely on any
|
|
jiffies or other HZ detail. Thus the CFS scheduler has no notion of
|
|
'timeslices' and has no heuristics whatsoever. There is only one
|
|
central tunable:
|
|
|
|
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns
|
|
|
|
which can be used to tune the scheduler from 'desktop' (low
|
|
latencies) to 'server' (good batching) workloads. It defaults to a
|
|
setting suitable for desktop workloads. SCHED_BATCH is handled by the
|
|
CFS scheduler module too.
|
|
|
|
Due to its design, the CFS scheduler is not prone to any of the
|
|
'attacks' that exist today against the heuristics of the stock
|
|
scheduler: fiftyp.c, thud.c, chew.c, ring-test.c, massive_intr.c all
|
|
work fine and do not impact interactivity and produce the expected
|
|
behavior.
|
|
|
|
the CFS scheduler has a much stronger handling of nice levels and
|
|
SCHED_BATCH: both types of workloads should be isolated much more
|
|
agressively than under the vanilla scheduler.
|
|
|
|
( another detail: due to nanosec accounting and timeline sorting,
|
|
sched_yield() support is very simple under CFS, and in fact under
|
|
CFS sched_yield() behaves much better than under any other
|
|
scheduler i have tested so far. )
|
|
|
|
- sched_rt.c implements SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR semantics, in a simpler
|
|
way than the vanilla scheduler does. It uses 100 runqueues (for all
|
|
100 RT priority levels, instead of 140 in the vanilla scheduler)
|
|
and it needs no expired array.
|
|
|
|
- reworked/sanitized SMP load-balancing: the runqueue-walking
|
|
assumptions are gone from the load-balancing code now, and
|
|
iterators of the scheduling modules are used. The balancing code got
|
|
quite a bit simpler as a result.
|
|
|