| Goals, Design and Implementation of the |
| new ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler |
| |
| |
| This is an edited version of an email Ingo Molnar sent to |
| lkml on 4 Jan 2002. It describes the goals, design, and |
| implementation of Ingo's new ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler. |
| Last Updated: 18 April 2002. |
| |
| |
| Goal |
| ==== |
| |
| The main goal of the new scheduler is to keep all the good things we know |
| and love about the current Linux scheduler: |
| |
| - good interactive performance even during high load: if the user |
| types or clicks then the system must react instantly and must execute |
| the user tasks smoothly, even during considerable background load. |
| |
| - good scheduling/wakeup performance with 1-2 runnable processes. |
| |
| - fairness: no process should stay without any timeslice for any |
| unreasonable amount of time. No process should get an unjustly high |
| amount of CPU time. |
| |
| - priorities: less important tasks can be started with lower priority, |
| more important tasks with higher priority. |
| |
| - SMP efficiency: no CPU should stay idle if there is work to do. |
| |
| - SMP affinity: processes which run on one CPU should stay affine to |
| that CPU. Processes should not bounce between CPUs too frequently. |
| |
| - plus additional scheduler features: RT scheduling, CPU binding. |
| |
| and the goal is also to add a few new things: |
| |
| - fully O(1) scheduling. Are you tired of the recalculation loop |
| blowing the L1 cache away every now and then? Do you think the goodness |
| loop is taking a bit too long to finish if there are lots of runnable |
| processes? This new scheduler takes no prisoners: wakeup(), schedule(), |
| the timer interrupt are all O(1) algorithms. There is no recalculation |
| loop. There is no goodness loop either. |
| |
| - 'perfect' SMP scalability. With the new scheduler there is no 'big' |
| runqueue_lock anymore - it's all per-CPU runqueues and locks - two |
| tasks on two separate CPUs can wake up, schedule and context-switch |
| completely in parallel, without any interlocking. All |
| scheduling-relevant data is structured for maximum scalability. |
| |
| - better SMP affinity. The old scheduler has a particular weakness that |
| causes the random bouncing of tasks between CPUs if/when higher |
| priority/interactive tasks, this was observed and reported by many |
| people. The reason is that the timeslice recalculation loop first needs |
| every currently running task to consume its timeslice. But when this |
| happens on eg. an 8-way system, then this property starves an |
| increasing number of CPUs from executing any process. Once the last |
| task that has a timeslice left has finished using up that timeslice, |
| the recalculation loop is triggered and other CPUs can start executing |
| tasks again - after having idled around for a number of timer ticks. |
| The more CPUs, the worse this effect. |
| |
| Furthermore, this same effect causes the bouncing effect as well: |
| whenever there is such a 'timeslice squeeze' of the global runqueue, |
| idle processors start executing tasks which are not affine to that CPU. |
| (because the affine tasks have finished off their timeslices already.) |
| |
| The new scheduler solves this problem by distributing timeslices on a |
| per-CPU basis, without having any global synchronization or |
| recalculation. |
| |
| - batch scheduling. A significant proportion of computing-intensive tasks |
| benefit from batch-scheduling, where timeslices are long and processes |
| are roundrobin scheduled. The new scheduler does such batch-scheduling |
| of the lowest priority tasks - so nice +19 jobs will get |
| 'batch-scheduled' automatically. With this scheduler, nice +19 jobs are |
| in essence SCHED_IDLE, from an interactiveness point of view. |
| |
| - handle extreme loads more smoothly, without breakdown and scheduling |
| storms. |
| |
| - O(1) RT scheduling. For those RT folks who are paranoid about the |
| O(nr_running) property of the goodness loop and the recalculation loop. |
| |
| - run fork()ed children before the parent. Andrea has pointed out the |
| advantages of this a few months ago, but patches for this feature |
| do not work with the old scheduler as well as they should, |
| because idle processes often steal the new child before the fork()ing |
| CPU gets to execute it. |
| |
| |
| Design |
| ====== |
| |
| The core of the new scheduler contains the following mechanisms: |
| |
| - *two* priority-ordered 'priority arrays' per CPU. There is an 'active' |
| array and an 'expired' array. The active array contains all tasks that |
| are affine to this CPU and have timeslices left. The expired array |
| contains all tasks which have used up their timeslices - but this array |
| is kept sorted as well. The active and expired array is not accessed |
| directly, it's accessed through two pointers in the per-CPU runqueue |
| structure. If all active tasks are used up then we 'switch' the two |
| pointers and from now on the ready-to-go (former-) expired array is the |
| active array - and the empty active array serves as the new collector |
| for expired tasks. |
| |
| - there is a 64-bit bitmap cache for array indices. Finding the highest |
| priority task is thus a matter of two x86 BSFL bit-search instructions. |
| |
| the split-array solution enables us to have an arbitrary number of active |
| and expired tasks, and the recalculation of timeslices can be done |
| immediately when the timeslice expires. Because the arrays are always |
| access through the pointers in the runqueue, switching the two arrays can |
| be done very quickly. |
| |
| this is a hybride priority-list approach coupled with roundrobin |
| scheduling and the array-switch method of distributing timeslices. |
| |
| - there is a per-task 'load estimator'. |
| |
| one of the toughest things to get right is good interactive feel during |
| heavy system load. While playing with various scheduler variants i found |
| that the best interactive feel is achieved not by 'boosting' interactive |
| tasks, but by 'punishing' tasks that want to use more CPU time than there |
| is available. This method is also much easier to do in an O(1) fashion. |
| |
| to establish the actual 'load' the task contributes to the system, a |
| complex-looking but pretty accurate method is used: there is a 4-entry |
| 'history' ringbuffer of the task's activities during the last 4 seconds. |
| This ringbuffer is operated without much overhead. The entries tell the |
| scheduler a pretty accurate load-history of the task: has it used up more |
| CPU time or less during the past N seconds. [the size '4' and the interval |
| of 4x 1 seconds was found by lots of experimentation - this part is |
| flexible and can be changed in both directions.] |
| |
| the penalty a task gets for generating more load than the CPU can handle |
| is a priority decrease - there is a maximum amount to this penalty |
| relative to their static priority, so even fully CPU-bound tasks will |
| observe each other's priorities, and will share the CPU accordingly. |
| |
| the SMP load-balancer can be extended/switched with additional parallel |
| computing and cache hierarchy concepts: NUMA scheduling, multi-core CPUs |
| can be supported easily by changing the load-balancer. Right now it's |
| tuned for my SMP systems. |
| |
| i skipped the prev->mm == next->mm advantage - no workload i know of shows |
| any sensitivity to this. It can be added back by sacrificing O(1) |
| schedule() [the current and one-lower priority list can be searched for a |
| that->mm == current->mm condition], but costs a fair number of cycles |
| during a number of important workloads, so i wanted to avoid this as much |
| as possible. |
| |
| - the SMP idle-task startup code was still racy and the new scheduler |
| triggered this. So i streamlined the idle-setup code a bit. We do not call |
| into schedule() before all processors have started up fully and all idle |
| threads are in place. |
| |
| - the patch also cleans up a number of aspects of sched.c - moves code |
| into other areas of the kernel where it's appropriate, and simplifies |
| certain code paths and data constructs. As a result, the new scheduler's |
| code is smaller than the old one. |
| |
| Ingo |