summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/kernel/sched/deadline.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorVineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>2023-05-30 09:55:25 -0400
committerPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>2023-06-16 22:08:11 +0200
commit6a9d623aad89539eca71eb264db6b9d538620ad5 (patch)
tree5109d426a4bd106d0f5633f207f003ba41743c6b /kernel/sched/deadline.c
parentef73d6a4ef0b35524125c3cfc6deafc26a0c966a (diff)
downloadlinux-stable-6a9d623aad89539eca71eb264db6b9d538620ad5.tar.gz
linux-stable-6a9d623aad89539eca71eb264db6b9d538620ad5.tar.bz2
linux-stable-6a9d623aad89539eca71eb264db6b9d538620ad5.zip
sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth reclaim equation in GRUB
According to the GRUB[1] rule, the runtime is depreciated as: "dq = -max{u, (1 - Uinact - Uextra)} dt" (1) To guarantee that deadline tasks doesn't starve lower class tasks, we do not allocate the full bandwidth of the cpu to deadline tasks. Maximum bandwidth usable by deadline tasks is denoted by "Umax". Considering Umax, equation (1) becomes: "dq = -(max{u, (Umax - Uinact - Uextra)} / Umax) dt" (2) Current implementation has a minor bug in equation (2), which this patch fixes. The reclamation logic is verified by a sample program which creates multiple deadline threads and observing their utilization. The tests were run on an isolated cpu(isolcpus=3) on a 4 cpu system. Tests on 6.3.0 ============== RUN 1: runtime=7ms, deadline=period=10ms, RT capacity = 95% TID[693]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 93.33 TID[693]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 93.35 RUN 2: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=100ms, RT capacity = 95% TID[708]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 16.69 TID[708]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 16.69 RUN 3: 2 tasks Task 1: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=10ms Task 2: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=100ms TID[631]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 62.67 TID[632]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 6.37 TID[631]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 62.38 TID[632]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 6.23 As seen above, the reclamation doesn't reclaim the maximum allowed bandwidth and as the bandwidth of tasks gets smaller, the reclaimed bandwidth also comes down. Tests with this patch applied ============================= RUN 1: runtime=7ms, deadline=period=10ms, RT capacity = 95% TID[608]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 95.19 TID[608]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 95.16 RUN 2: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=100ms, RT capacity = 95% TID[616]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 95.27 TID[616]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 95.21 RUN 3: 2 tasks Task 1: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=10ms Task 2: runtime=1ms, deadline=period=100ms TID[620]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 86.64 TID[621]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 8.66 TID[620]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 86.45 TID[621]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=100ms, p=100ms), Util: 8.73 Running tasks on all cpus allowing for migration also showed that the utilization is reclaimed to the maximum. Running 10 tasks on 3 cpus SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM - top shows: %Cpu0 : 94.6 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 5.4 id, 0.0 wa %Cpu1 : 95.2 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 4.8 id, 0.0 wa %Cpu2 : 95.8 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 4.2 id, 0.0 wa [1]: Abeni, Luca & Lipari, Giuseppe & Parri, Andrea & Sun, Youcheng. (2015). Parallel and sequential reclaiming in multicore real-time global scheduling. Signed-off-by: Vineeth Pillai (Google) <vineeth@bitbyteword.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230530135526.2385378-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/sched/deadline.c')
-rw-r--r--kernel/sched/deadline.c50
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 27 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index f827067ad03b..e41a36bd66a6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1253,43 +1253,39 @@ int dl_runtime_exceeded(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
}
/*
- * This function implements the GRUB accounting rule:
- * according to the GRUB reclaiming algorithm, the runtime is
- * not decreased as "dq = -dt", but as
- * "dq = -max{u / Umax, (1 - Uinact - Uextra)} dt",
+ * This function implements the GRUB accounting rule. According to the
+ * GRUB reclaiming algorithm, the runtime is not decreased as "dq = -dt",
+ * but as "dq = -(max{u, (Umax - Uinact - Uextra)} / Umax) dt",
* where u is the utilization of the task, Umax is the maximum reclaimable
* utilization, Uinact is the (per-runqueue) inactive utilization, computed
* as the difference between the "total runqueue utilization" and the
- * runqueue active utilization, and Uextra is the (per runqueue) extra
+ * "runqueue active utilization", and Uextra is the (per runqueue) extra
* reclaimable utilization.
- * Since rq->dl.running_bw and rq->dl.this_bw contain utilizations
- * multiplied by 2^BW_SHIFT, the result has to be shifted right by
- * BW_SHIFT.
- * Since rq->dl.bw_ratio contains 1 / Umax multiplied by 2^RATIO_SHIFT,
- * dl_bw is multiped by rq->dl.bw_ratio and shifted right by RATIO_SHIFT.
- * Since delta is a 64 bit variable, to have an overflow its value
- * should be larger than 2^(64 - 20 - 8), which is more than 64 seconds.
- * So, overflow is not an issue here.
+ * Since rq->dl.running_bw and rq->dl.this_bw contain utilizations multiplied
+ * by 2^BW_SHIFT, the result has to be shifted right by BW_SHIFT.
+ * Since rq->dl.bw_ratio contains 1 / Umax multiplied by 2^RATIO_SHIFT, dl_bw
+ * is multiped by rq->dl.bw_ratio and shifted right by RATIO_SHIFT.
+ * Since delta is a 64 bit variable, to have an overflow its value should be
+ * larger than 2^(64 - 20 - 8), which is more than 64 seconds. So, overflow is
+ * not an issue here.
*/
static u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
{
- u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot - Uact */
u64 u_act;
- u64 u_act_min = (dl_se->dl_bw * rq->dl.bw_ratio) >> RATIO_SHIFT;
+ u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot - Uact */
/*
- * Instead of computing max{u * bw_ratio, (1 - u_inact - u_extra)},
- * we compare u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw with
- * 1 - (u * rq->dl.bw_ratio >> RATIO_SHIFT), because
- * u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw can be larger than
- * 1 * (so, 1 - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw would be negative
- * leading to wrong results)
+ * Instead of computing max{u, (u_max - u_inact - u_extra)}, we
+ * compare u_inact + u_extra with u_max - u, because u_inact + u_extra
+ * can be larger than u_max. So, u_max - u_inact - u_extra would be
+ * negative leading to wrong results.
*/
- if (u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw > BW_UNIT - u_act_min)
- u_act = u_act_min;
+ if (u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw > rq->dl.max_bw - dl_se->dl_bw)
+ u_act = dl_se->dl_bw;
else
- u_act = BW_UNIT - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw;
+ u_act = rq->dl.max_bw - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw;
+ u_act = (u_act * rq->dl.bw_ratio) >> RATIO_SHIFT;
return (delta * u_act) >> BW_SHIFT;
}
@@ -2788,12 +2784,12 @@ static void init_dl_rq_bw_ratio(struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
{
if (global_rt_runtime() == RUNTIME_INF) {
dl_rq->bw_ratio = 1 << RATIO_SHIFT;
- dl_rq->extra_bw = 1 << BW_SHIFT;
+ dl_rq->max_bw = dl_rq->extra_bw = 1 << BW_SHIFT;
} else {
dl_rq->bw_ratio = to_ratio(global_rt_runtime(),
global_rt_period()) >> (BW_SHIFT - RATIO_SHIFT);
- dl_rq->extra_bw = to_ratio(global_rt_period(),
- global_rt_runtime());
+ dl_rq->max_bw = dl_rq->extra_bw =
+ to_ratio(global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
}
}