Currently task_h_load() computes the load of a task and uses that to either
subtract it from the total, or add to it.
However, removing or adding a task need not have any effect on the total load
at all. Imagine adding a task to a group that is local to one cpu - in that
case the total load of that cpu is unaffected.
So properly compute addition/removal:
s_i = S * rw_i / \Sum_j rw_j
s'_i = S * (rw_i + wl) / (\Sum_j rw_j + wg)
then s'_i - s_i gives the change in load.
Where s_i is the shares for cpu i, S the group weight, rw_i the runqueue weight
for that cpu, wl the weight we add (subtract) and wg the weight contribution to
the runqueue.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
doing the load balance will change cfs_rq->load.weight (that's the whole point)
but since that's part of the scale factor, we'll scale back with a different
amount.
Weight getting smaller would result in an inflated moved_load which causes
it to stop balancing too soon.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
With hierarchical grouping we can't just compare task weight to rq weight - we
need to scale the weight appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
While thinking about the previous patch - I realized that using per domain
aggregate load values in load_balance_fair() is wrong. We should use the
load value for that CPU.
By not needing per domain hierarchical load values we don't need to store
per domain aggregate shares, which greatly simplifies all the math.
It basically falls apart in two separate computations:
- per domain update of the shares
- per CPU update of the hierarchical load
Also get rid of the move_group_shares() stuff - just re-compute the shares
again after a successful load balance.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
We only need to know the task_weight of the busiest rq - nothing to do
if there are no tasks there.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The idea was to balance groups until we've reached the global goal, however
Vatsa rightly pointed out that we might never reach that goal this way -
hence take out this logic.
[ the initial rationale for this 'feature' was to promote max concurrency
within a group - it does not however affect fairness ]
Reported-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Keeping the aggregate on the first cpu of the sched domain has two problems:
- it could collide between different sched domains on different cpus
- it could slow things down because of the remote accesses
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Uncouple buddy selection from wakeup granularity.
The initial idea was that buddies could run ahead as far as a normal task
can - do this by measuring a pair 'slice' just as we do for a normal task.
This means we can drop the wakeup_granularity back to 5ms.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Ok, so why are we in this mess, it was:
1/w
but now we mixed that rw in the mix like:
rw/w
rw being \Sum w suggests: fiddling w, we should also fiddle rw, humm?
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
calc_delta_asym() is supposed to do the same as calc_delta_fair() except
linearly shrink the result for negative nice processes - this causes them
to have a smaller preemption threshold so that they are more easily preempted.
The problem is that for task groups se->load.weight is the per cpu share of
the actual task group weight; take that into account.
Also provide a debug switch to disable the asymmetry (which I still don't
like - but it does greatly benefit some workloads)
This would explain the interactivity issues reported against group scheduling.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The currently logic inadvertently skips the last task on the run-queue,
resulting in missed balance opportunities.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Signed-off-by: David Bahi <dbahi@novell.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Prevent short-running wakers of short-running threads from overloading a single
cpu via wakeup affinity, and wire up disconnected debug option.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Yanmin Zhang reported:
Comparing with 2.6.25, volanoMark has big regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1.
It's about 50% on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, and Itanium Montecito.
With bisect, I located the following patch:
| 18d95a2832 is first bad commit
| commit 18d95a2832
| Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
| Date: Sat Apr 19 19:45:00 2008 +0200
|
| sched: fair-group: SMP-nice for group scheduling
Revert it so that we get v2.6.25 behavior.
Bisected-by: Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Change references from for_each_cpu_mask to for_each_cpu_mask_nr
where appropriate
Reviewed-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
The conversion between virtual and real time is as follows:
dvt = rw/w * dt <=> dt = w/rw * dvt
Since we want the fair sleeper granularity to be in real time, we actually
need to do:
dvt = - rw/w * l
This bug could be related to the regression reported by Yanmin Zhang:
| Comparing with kernel 2.6.25, sysbench+mysql(oltp, readonly) has lots
| of regressions with 2.6.26-rc1:
|
| 1) 8-core stoakley: 28%;
| 2) 16-core tigerton: 20%;
| 3) Itanium Montvale: 50%.
Reported-by: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
this replaces the rq->clock stuff (and possibly cpu_clock()).
- architectures that have an 'imperfect' hardware clock can set
CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
- the 'jiffie' window might be superfulous when we update tick_gtod
before the __update_sched_clock() call in sched_clock_tick()
- cpu_clock() might be implemented as:
sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id())
if the accuracy proves good enough - how far can TSC drift in a
single jiffie when considering the filtering and idle hooks?
[ mingo@elte.hu: various fixes and cleanups ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Revert debugging commit 7ba2e74ab5.
print_cfs_rq_tasks() can induce live-lock if a task is dequeued
during list traversal.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
We currently use an optimization to skip the overhead of wake-idle
processing if more than one task is assigned to a run-queue. The
assumption is that the system must already be load-balanced or we
wouldnt be overloaded to begin with.
The problem is that we are looking at rq->nr_running, which may include
RT tasks in addition to CFS tasks. Since the presence of RT tasks
really has no bearing on the balance status of CFS tasks, this throws
the calculation off.
This patch changes the logic to only consider the number of CFS tasks
when making the decision to optimze the wake-idle.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Noticed by sparse:
kernel/sched.c:760:20: warning: symbol 'sched_feat_names' was not declared. Should it be static?
kernel/sched.c:767:5: warning: symbol 'sched_feat_open' was not declared. Should it be static?
kernel/sched_fair.c:845:3: warning: returning void-valued expression
kernel/sched.c:4386:3: warning: returning void-valued expression
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Normalized sleeper uses calc_delta*() which requires that the rq load is
already updated, so move account_entity_enqueue() before place_entity()
Tested-by: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In order to level the hierarchy, we need to calculate load based on the
root view. That is, each task's load is in the same unit.
A
/ \
B 1
/ \
2 3
To compute 1's load we do:
weight(1)
--------------
rq_weight(A)
To compute 2's load we do:
weight(2) weight(B)
------------ * -----------
rq_weight(B) rw_weight(A)
This yields load fractions in comparable units.
The consequence is that it changes virtual time. We used to have:
time_{i}
vtime_{i} = ------------
weight_{i}
vtime = \Sum vtime_{i} = time / rq_weight.
But with the new way of load calculation we get that vtime equals time.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
De-couple load-balancing from the rb-trees, so that I can change their
organization.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Currently FAIR_GROUP sched grows the scheduler latency outside of
sysctl_sched_latency, invert this so it stays within.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Implement SMP nice support for the full group hierarchy.
On each load-balance action, compile a sched_domain wide view of the full
task_group tree. We compute the domain wide view when walking down the
hierarchy, and readjust the weights when walking back up.
After collecting and readjusting the domain wide view, we try to balance the
tasks within the task_groups. The current approach is a naively balance each
task group until we've moved the targeted amount of load.
Inspired by Srivatsa Vaddsgiri's previous code and Abhishek Chandra's H-SMP
paper.
XXX: there will be some numerical issues due to the limited nature of
SCHED_LOAD_SCALE wrt to representing a task_groups influence on the
total weight. When the tree is deep enough, or the task weight small
enough, we'll run out of bits.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
CC: Abhishek Chandra <chandra@cs.umn.edu>
CC: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
[rebased for sched-devel/latest]
- Add a new cpuset file, having levels:
sched_relax_domain_level
- Modify partition_sched_domains() and build_sched_domains()
to take attributes parameter passed from cpuset.
- Fill newidle_idx for node domains which currently unused but
might be required if sched_relax_domain_level become higher.
- We can change the default level by boot option 'relax_domain_level='.
Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This patch allows tasks and groups to exist in the same cfs_rq. With this
change the CFS group scheduling follows a 1/(M+N) model from a 1/(1+N)
fairness model where M tasks and N groups exist at the cfs_rq level.
[a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl: rt bits and assorted fixes]
Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Balbir Singh reported:
> 1:mon> t
> [c0000000e7677da0] c000000000067de0 .sys_sched_yield+0x6c/0xbc
> [c0000000e7677e30] c000000000008748 syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
> --- Exception: c01 (System Call) at 00000400001d09e4
> SP (4000664cb10) is in userspace
> 1:mon> r
> cpu 0x1: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c0000000e7677aa0]
> pc: c000000000068e50: .yield_task_fair+0x94/0xc4
> lr: c000000000067de0: .sys_sched_yield+0x6c/0xbc
the check that should have avoided that is:
/*
* Are we the only task in the tree?
*/
if (unlikely(rq->load.weight == curr->se.load.weight))
return;
But I guess that overlooks rt tasks, they also increase the load.
So I guess something like this ought to fix it..
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
The wakeup buddy logic didn't use the same wakeup granularity logic as the
wakeup preemption did, this might cause the ->next buddy to be selected past
the point where we would have preempted had the task been a single running
instance.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
revert "sched: fix fair sleepers" (e22ecef1d2),
because it is causing audio skipping, see:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10428
the patch is correct and the real cause of the skipping is not
understood (tracing makes it go away), but time has run out so we'll
revert it and re-try in 2.6.26.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
TREE_AVG and APPROX_AVG are initial task placement policies that have been
disabled for a long while.. time to remove them.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
CC: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
improve affine wakeups. Maintain the 'overlap' metric based on CFS's
sum_exec_runtime - which means the amount of time a task executes
after it wakes up some other task.
Use the 'overlap' for the wakeup decisions: if the 'overlap' is short,
it means there's strong workload coupling between this task and the
woken up task. If the 'overlap' is large then the workload is decoupled
and the scheduler will move them to separate CPUs more easily.
( Also slightly move the preempt_check within try_to_wake_up() - this has
no effect on functionality but allows 'early wakeups' (for still-on-rq
tasks) to be correctly accounted as well.)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
split out the affine-wakeup bits.
No code changed:
kernel/sched.o:
text data bss dec hex filename
42521 2858 232 45611 b22b sched.o.before
42521 2858 232 45611 b22b sched.o.after
md5:
9d76738f1272aa82f0b7affd2f51df6b sched.o.before.asm
09b31c44e9aff8666f72773dc433e2df sched.o.after.asm
(the md5's changed because stack slots changed and some registers
get scheduled by gcc in a different order - but otherwise the before
and after assembly is instruction for instruction equivalent.)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Use the existing calc_delta_mine() calculation for sched_slice(). This
saves a divide and simplifies the code because we share it with the
other /cfs_rq->load users.
It also improves code size:
text data bss dec hex filename
42659 2740 144 45543 b1e7 sched.o.before
42093 2740 144 44977 afb1 sched.o.after
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Fair sleepers need to scale their latency target down by runqueue
weight. Otherwise busy systems will gain ever larger sleep bonus.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Currently we schedule to the leftmost task in the runqueue. When the
runtimes are very short because of some server/client ping-pong,
especially in over-saturated workloads, this will cycle through all
tasks trashing the cache.
Reduce cache trashing by keeping dependent tasks together by running
newly woken tasks first. However, by not running the leftmost task first
we could starve tasks because the wakee can gain unlimited runtime.
Therefore we only run the wakee if its within a small
(wakeup_granularity) window of the leftmost task. This preserves
fairness, but does alternate server/client task groups.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Current min_vruntime tracking is incorrect and will cause serious
problems when we don't run the leftmost task for some reason.
min_vruntime does two things; 1) it's used to determine a forward
direction when the u64 vruntime wraps, 2) it's used to track the
leftmost vruntime to position newly enqueued tasks from.
The current logic advances min_vruntime whenever the current task's
vruntime advance. Because the current task may pass the leftmost task
still waiting we're failing the second goal. This causes new tasks to be
placed too far ahead and thus penalizes their runtime.
Fix this by making min_vruntime the min_vruntime of the waiting tasks by
tracking it in enqueue/dequeue, and compare against current's vruntime
to obtain the absolute minimum when placing new tasks.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Kei Tokunaga reported an interactivity problem when moving tasks
between control groups.
Tasks would retain their old vruntime when moved between groups, this
can cause funny lags. Re-set the vruntime on group move to fit within
the new tree.
Reported-by: Kei Tokunaga <tokunaga.keiich@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Peter Zijlstra