Re: [PATCH] cpu scheduler: unsquish dynamic priorities
From: Peter Williams
Date: Fri Jan 06 2006 - 00:21:39 EST
Peter Williams wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem:
The current scheduler implementation maps 40 nice values and 10 bonus
values into only 40 priority slots on the run queues. This results
in the dynamic priorities of tasks at either end of the nice scale
being squished up. E.g. all tasks with nice in the range -20 to -16
and the maximum of 10 bonus points will end up with a dynamic
priority of MAX_RT_PRIO and all tasks with nice in the range 15 to 19
and no bonus points will end up with a dynamic priority of MAX_PRIO - 1.
Although the fact that niceness is primarily implemented by time
slice size means that this will have little or no adverse effect on
the long term allocation of CPU resources due to niceness, it could
adversely effect latency as it will interfere with preemption.
this property of the priority distribution was intentional from me, i
wanted to have an easy way to test 'no priority boosting downwards'
(nice +19) and 'no priority boosting upwards' (nice -20) conditions. But
i like your patch, because it simplifies effective_prio() a bit,
Yes and after some testing we should be able to drop the two BUG_ON()
statements and simplify it even further. I only put them in because the
original code meant that the implicit assertion:
0 <= CURRENT_BONUS(p) <= MAX_BONUS
hasn't really been tested. As a result of code review, I'm pretty sure
that it holds but it doesn't hurt to be careful.
and with SCHED_BATCH we'll have the 'no boosting' property anyway.
Could you redo the patch against the current scheduler queue in -mm,
so that we can try it out in -mm?
Attached is a patch against 2.6.15-rc5-mm3.
On the assumption that you're still interested in trying this patch out
I've attached a version against 2.6.15-mm1.
Btw., another user-visible effect is that task_prio() will return the
new range, which will be visible in e.g. 'top'. I dont think it will
be confusing though.
No, people will get used to it. Interactive tasks (with nice 0) now
tend to get a dynamic priority of 20 instead of 15 which looks more
natural (to me). But I guess it makes the interactive adjustment look
more like a penalty imposed on non interactive tasks rather than a bonus
given to interactive tasks. But this is simpler than the original
version where it looks like a combination of a bonus to interactive
tasks and a penalty for non interactive tasks.
Signed-off-by: Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
The problem:
The current scheduler implementation maps 40 nice values and 10 bonus
values into only 40 priority slots on the run queues. This results in
the dynamic priorities of tasks at either end of the nice scale being
squished up. E.g. all tasks with nice in the range -20 to -16 and the
maximum of 10 bonus points will end up with a dynamic priority of
MAX_RT_PRIO and all tasks with nice in the range 15 to 19 and no
bonus points will end up with a dynamic priority of MAX_PRIO - 1.
Although the fact that niceness is promarily implemented by time
slice size means that this will have no adverse effect on the long
term allocation of CPU resources due to niceness, it could adversely
effect latency as it will interfere with preemption.
The solution:
Increase the number of priority slots in the run queues to allow a
linear mapping and eliminate the squish.
The implementation:
As the only place MAX_PRIO is used outside of sched.c is to
initialize the init task in init_task.h, it is possible to implement the
solution entirely within sched.c by defining a new macro IDLE_PRIO
(which is equal to the sum of MAX_PRIO and MAX_BONUS) and then
replacing MAX_PRIO by IDLE_PRIO where appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Index: MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- MM-2.6.X.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-01-06 14:39:28.000000000 +1100
+++ MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c 2006-01-06 16:16:04.000000000 +1100
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@
(SCALE(TASK_NICE(p), 40, MAX_BONUS) + INTERACTIVE_DELTA)
#define TASK_INTERACTIVE(p) \
- ((p)->prio <= (p)->static_prio - DELTA(p))
+ ((p)->prio <= (p)->static_prio - DELTA(p) + MAX_BONUS / 2)
#define INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p) \
(JIFFIES_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_AVG * \
@@ -199,14 +199,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct_cb);
* These are the runqueue data structures:
*/
-#define BITMAP_SIZE ((((MAX_PRIO+1+7)/8)+sizeof(long)-1)/sizeof(long))
+#define IDLE_PRIO (MAX_PRIO + MAX_BONUS)
+#define BITMAP_SIZE ((((IDLE_PRIO+1+7)/8)+sizeof(long)-1)/sizeof(long))
typedef struct runqueue runqueue_t;
struct prio_array {
unsigned int nr_active;
unsigned long bitmap[BITMAP_SIZE];
- struct list_head queue[MAX_PRIO];
+ struct list_head queue[IDLE_PRIO];
};
/*
@@ -664,18 +665,15 @@ static inline void enqueue_task_head(str
*/
static int effective_prio(task_t *p)
{
- int bonus, prio;
+ int prio;
if (rt_task(p))
return p->prio;
- bonus = CURRENT_BONUS(p) - MAX_BONUS / 2;
+ prio = p->static_prio + MAX_BONUS - CURRENT_BONUS(p);
+ BUG_ON(prio < MAX_RT_PRIO);
+ BUG_ON(prio > IDLE_PRIO - 1);
- prio = p->static_prio - bonus;
- if (prio < MAX_RT_PRIO)
- prio = MAX_RT_PRIO;
- if (prio > MAX_PRIO-1)
- prio = MAX_PRIO-1;
return prio;
}
@@ -1867,7 +1865,7 @@ void pull_task(runqueue_t *src_rq, prio_
p->timestamp = (p->timestamp - src_rq->timestamp_last_tick)
+ this_rq->timestamp_last_tick;
/*
- * Note that idle threads have a prio of MAX_PRIO, for this test
+ * Note that idle threads have a prio of IDLE_PRIO, for this test
* to be always true for them.
*/
if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq))
@@ -1952,8 +1950,8 @@ skip_bitmap:
if (!idx)
idx = sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap);
else
- idx = find_next_bit(array->bitmap, MAX_PRIO, idx);
- if (idx >= MAX_PRIO) {
+ idx = find_next_bit(array->bitmap, IDLE_PRIO, idx);
+ if (idx >= IDLE_PRIO) {
if (array == busiest->expired && busiest->active->nr_active) {
array = busiest->active;
dst_array = this_rq->active;
@@ -3071,7 +3069,7 @@ go_idle:
rq->expired = array;
array = rq->active;
rq->expired_timestamp = 0;
- rq->best_expired_prio = MAX_PRIO;
+ rq->best_expired_prio = IDLE_PRIO;
}
idx = sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap);
@@ -4434,7 +4432,7 @@ void __devinit init_idle(task_t *idle, i
idle->sleep_avg = 0;
idle->array = NULL;
- idle->prio = MAX_PRIO;
+ idle->prio = IDLE_PRIO;
idle->state = TASK_RUNNING;
idle->cpus_allowed = cpumask_of_cpu(cpu);
set_task_cpu(idle, cpu);
@@ -4775,7 +4773,7 @@ static void migrate_dead_tasks(unsigned
struct runqueue *rq = cpu_rq(dead_cpu);
for (arr = 0; arr < 2; arr++) {
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_PRIO; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < IDLE_PRIO; i++) {
struct list_head *list = &rq->arrays[arr].queue[i];
while (!list_empty(list))
migrate_dead(dead_cpu,
@@ -4954,7 +4952,7 @@ static int migration_call(struct notifie
/* Idle task back to normal (off runqueue, low prio) */
rq = task_rq_lock(rq->idle, &flags);
deactivate_task(rq->idle, rq);
- rq->idle->static_prio = MAX_PRIO;
+ rq->idle->static_prio = IDLE_PRIO;
__setscheduler(rq->idle, SCHED_NORMAL, 0);
migrate_dead_tasks(cpu);
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
@@ -6239,7 +6237,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
rq->nr_running = 0;
rq->active = rq->arrays;
rq->expired = rq->arrays + 1;
- rq->best_expired_prio = MAX_PRIO;
+ rq->best_expired_prio = IDLE_PRIO;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
rq->sd = NULL;
@@ -6254,12 +6252,12 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
array = rq->arrays + j;
- for (k = 0; k < MAX_PRIO; k++) {
+ for (k = 0; k < IDLE_PRIO; k++) {
INIT_LIST_HEAD(array->queue + k);
__clear_bit(k, array->bitmap);
}
// delimiter for bitsearch
- __set_bit(MAX_PRIO, array->bitmap);
+ __set_bit(IDLE_PRIO, array->bitmap);
}
}