lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH][2.6.6] Replacing CPU scheduler active and expired with a single array
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:19, Peter Williams wrote:
>
>>Out of interest, what was the reason? What problem were you addressing?
>
>
> The interactive credit?

No. I was asking about the mechanism in schedule() that, based on the
value of "activated", allows some tasks to count their time on the run
queue as sleep time.

>
> There was a problem with difficulty elevating back to interactive state if an
> interactive task had used too long a burst of cpu (ie Xfree) which was
> addressed by making the bonus pseudo-exponentially curved for rapid recovery
> and slow decay - in fact this is probably the most important part of
> addressing the interactive tasks and had the best effect.

But this probably answers my question anyway.

> The problem was
> that giving this to all tasks meant that cpu bound tasks that had, as a
> property of their behaviour, long waits on say pipes or i/o would also get
> this rapid recovery to interactive state and as soon as they became fully
> bound to cpu again they would cause noticable stalls. The standard example is
> the increasing number of jobs in a make, where each job waits longer for i/o
> as the job numbers increase. However there were much worse examples at even
> normal - low loads, such as mpeg or divx encoding where the encoder would
> buffer say 250 frames sleeping and then do them in a burst. (this is the
> maximum space between key [I] frame or intervals). The interactive credit
> prevented those tasks that would have long but only infrequent sleeps from
> getting the curved bonus/penalty.

In the near future, I'll be proposing another patch that goes on top of
the single priority array (SPA) patch that has the express purpose of
reducing the time that all tasks spend on run queues. I think that one
of the side effects of this mechanism is that it will alleviate the
problem you've described above.

I also think that their is a category of task that may be automatically
detected and that needs special attention and that is tasks that need
very regular access to small bursts of CPU. I suspect that the tasks
doing the mpeg and divx encoding/decoding that you refer to above fall
into this category. The key to identifying these tasks would be that
the variance (or standard deviation) of their sleeps would be close to
zero and as they probably do much the same amount of work each CPU burst
the same would be true of the variance of the length of the CPU bursts.
Currently, the scheduler relies on the interactive bonus to make sure
that these tasks get CPU when they need it but I suspect that to make
this happen the interactive bonus has to be larger than it might
otherwise need to be. So if these tasks can be identified and treated
specially (e.g. reserve the MAX_RT_PRIO slot for them) the interactive
bonus could be reduced and this would improve overall system throughput.

>
> Hmm... if this is black magic I guess I'm breaking the magician's cardinal
> rules and revealing my tricks ;-)
>

Peter
--
Dr Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.027 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site