| |
| 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 (you have to switch on CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG): |
| |
| /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. |
| |
| |
| Group scheduler extension to CFS |
| ================================ |
| |
| Normally the scheduler operates on individual tasks and strives to provide |
| fair CPU time to each task. Sometimes, it may be desirable to group tasks |
| and provide fair CPU time to each such task group. For example, it may |
| be desirable to first provide fair CPU time to each user on the system |
| and then to each task belonging to a user. |
| |
| CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED strives to achieve exactly that. It lets |
| SCHED_NORMAL/BATCH tasks be be grouped and divides CPU time fairly among such |
| groups. At present, there are two (mutually exclusive) mechanisms to group |
| tasks for CPU bandwidth control purpose: |
| |
| - Based on user id (CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED) |
| In this option, tasks are grouped according to their user id. |
| - Based on "cgroup" pseudo filesystem (CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED) |
| This options lets the administrator create arbitrary groups |
| of tasks, using the "cgroup" pseudo filesystem. See |
| Documentation/cgroups.txt for more information about this |
| filesystem. |
| |
| Only one of these options to group tasks can be chosen and not both. |
| |
| Group scheduler tunables: |
| |
| When CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED is defined, a directory is created in sysfs for |
| each new user and a "cpu_share" file is added in that directory. |
| |
| # cd /sys/kernel/uids |
| # cat 512/cpu_share # Display user 512's CPU share |
| 1024 |
| # echo 2048 > 512/cpu_share # Modify user 512's CPU share |
| # cat 512/cpu_share # Display user 512's CPU share |
| 2048 |
| # |
| |
| CPU bandwidth between two users are divided in the ratio of their CPU shares. |
| For ex: if you would like user "root" to get twice the bandwidth of user |
| "guest", then set the cpu_share for both the users such that "root"'s |
| cpu_share is twice "guest"'s cpu_share |
| |
| |
| When CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED is defined, a "cpu.shares" file is created |
| for each group created using the pseudo filesystem. See example steps |
| below to create task groups and modify their CPU share using the "cgroups" |
| pseudo filesystem |
| |
| # mkdir /dev/cpuctl |
| # mount -t cgroup -ocpu none /dev/cpuctl |
| # cd /dev/cpuctl |
| |
| # mkdir multimedia # create "multimedia" group of tasks |
| # mkdir browser # create "browser" group of tasks |
| |
| # #Configure the multimedia group to receive twice the CPU bandwidth |
| # #that of browser group |
| |
| # echo 2048 > multimedia/cpu.shares |
| # echo 1024 > browser/cpu.shares |
| |
| # firefox & # Launch firefox and move it to "browser" group |
| # echo <firefox_pid> > browser/tasks |
| |
| # #Launch gmplayer (or your favourite movie player) |
| # echo <movie_player_pid> > multimedia/tasks |