Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:01 -0700
From:	Mike Mattie <codermattie@...il.com>
To:	CK <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: rsdl v46 report,numbers,comments

Hello,

0. intro

I am very happy to report that v46 of RSDL subjectively is much better than v42. As you (Con Kolivas) might 
remember from a previous mail I was experimenting with using nice levels effectively. I have refined these 
levels to this layout:

-2  : clock (ntpd)
-1  : syslog,sshd,X
0   : command; default for shells
1   : audacious (audio), xfce window manager (with compositor on )
2   :  emacs (SCHED_OTHER), desktop/window manager infrastructure (dbus), ssh-agent , bind (batch scheduled )
3   : desktop applications (mail , xchat, openoffice )
5   : spamd,batch scheduled compiles/test-suites.
10  : cron jobs

1. Some numbers

My machine is a particularly tough case I think. A uni-processor Athlon XP 3000+ (involuntary pre-empt) with a 
software RAID5 on PATA drives. I load it heavily with compiles/test-suites, and I am very sensitive to audio 
glitches. 

here are some stats for idle:

---load-avg--- ------memory-usage----- ----total-cpu-usage---- ----interrupts--- ---system--
_1m_ _5m_ 15m_|_used _buff _cach _free|usr sys idl wai hiq siq|__17_ __18_ __20_|_int_ _csw_
 0.2  0.2  0.2| 170M   15M  309M 6560k|  2   1  94   4   0   0|   1     7   150 | 238   208 
 0.2  0.2  0.2| 170M   15M  309M 6568k|  1   0  99   0   0   0|   0     0     0 |  76    55 
 0.2  0.2  0.2| 170M   15M  309M 6568k|  0   1  99   0   0   0|   0     0     0 |  75    47 
 0.2  0.2  0.2| 170M   15M  309M 6624k|  4   0  96   0   0   0|   0     0     0 |  75    37 
 0.2  0.2  0.2| 170M   15M  309M 6624k|  1   0  99   0   0   0|   0     0     0 |  75    36 

here are some stats for music playing:

---load-avg--- ------memory-usage----- ----total-cpu-usage---- ----interrupts--- ---system--
_1m_ _5m_ 15m_|_used _buff _cach _free|usr sys idl wai hiq siq|__17_ __18_ __20_|_int_ _csw_
 0.9  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 5652k|  2   1  94   4   0   0|   1     7   150 | 238   210 
 0.9  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 5652k| 10   1  89   0   0   0|   0     3   989 |1068  1510 
 0.9  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 5592k| 13   0  87   0   0   0|   0     3  1013 |1093  1565 
 0.9  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  304M 6300k| 11   1  88   0   0   0|   0     3  1000 |1078  1496 
 0.9  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 6300k| 13   0  87   0   0   0|   0     3  1006 |1084  1509 
 0.8  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 6180k| 13   1  86   0   0   0|   0     3  1000 |1078  1524 
 0.8  0.4  0.2| 175M   15M  305M 6060k| 12   1  87   0   0   0|   0     3  1000 |1078  1564 

The context switches are high, but so are the interrupts (USB 2.0 Audigy NX)

To see how effective using these nice levels were I decided to play with rr_interval, on the theory
that with priorities strictly enforced and used aggressively that a longer time-slice would not
cause audio delay. So far that theory is holding. All of these numbers are with rr_internal = 20, and
I have less audio problems than any previous kernel/tuning setup.

That is very impressive.

as far as batch loading goes I tried a kernel compile. These numbers look nice for RSDL but there are
some caveats:

kernel compile , CFS v3                     : make  756.83s user 89.37s system 58% cpu 24:08.21 total
kernel compile , v46 rr_interval = default  : make  754.66s user 89.74s system 59% cpu 23:35.38 total
kernel compile , v46 rr_interval = 20       : make  682.83s user 84.34s system 73% cpu 17:29.57 total

1. The system was noisy. I did this intentionally. My typical load is a mixture of desktop/compile.
   All three numbers were generated while listening to music, reading docs/web/news, using emacs etc.
   with each of the compiles I tried running a visualization plugin (ProjectM inside audacious ) for
   a minute or so.

   This skews the numbers for comparison , but I was looking for an impression that was based off a
   *real* work-load. 

   It would like to add as well that before RSDL the mainline scheduler failed completely at running 
   ProjectM even when it was the only application on the desktop. ( It stalled for seconds with a rock steady period ).

2. All of these ran nice 5 sched: BATCH

3. I have the xfce compositor turned on, using the transparency.

4. compiled on software RAID 5 (md) -> dev mapper -> lvm2 -> ext3 , 4 drives, write-cache disabled,
   external 512 mg flash drive for a external journal , commit=15, journal=data

From the caveats above , especially the deep stack for the block layer, plus meeting audio deadlines
while sharing a interrupt with the journal drive (arghh) this is very impressive system behavior for me.

Here is the stats for doing a kernel compile with audacious running, plus mail,editor etc.

---load-avg--- ------memory-usage----- ----total-cpu-usage---- ----interrupts--- ---system--
_1m_ _5m_ 15m_|_used _buff _cach _free|usr sys idl wai hiq siq|__17_ __18_ __20_|_int_ _csw_
 1.3    1  0.8| 198M   22M  269M   11M|  3   1  92   4   0   0|   1     7   199 | 287   348 
 1.3    1  0.8| 204M   22M  269M 6072k| 79  12   0   9   0   0|   0     7  1003 |1087  2160 
 1.3    1  0.8| 195M   22M  268M   16M| 82  18   0   0   0   0|   0     8  1003 |1085  2703 
 1.3    1  0.8| 200M   22M  268M   10M| 82  16   0   2   0   0|   0     8  1009 |1094  2204 
 1.4    1  0.8| 195M   22M  269M   15M| 83  15   0   2   0   0|   0     8  1014 |1099  3007 
 1.4    1  0.8| 200M   22M  269M 9488k| 82  14   0   4   0   0|   0     7  1000 |1082  2361 
 1.4    1  0.8| 200M   22M  267M   12M| 83  15   0   2   0   0|   0     7  1000 |1085  2579 


Now for some comments from the peanut gallery.

2. Window Manager scheduler hinting ?

On reflection my workload may be the easy case. As a developer I run a
somewhat small number of applications, typically the lightest I can find, except emacs :)

A more typical desktop user might not be able to use my sort of setup, where I can push
a batchy job down in priority and wait for it. I also write shell functions, aliases etc 
to set this up, which is easy for a distro, but not necessarily average user usable.
For the users where they are running multiple monolithic CPU hog programs, like openoffice,firefox etc 
This sort of approach won't suit them.

However the strict enforcement of RSDL could be leveraged for the desktop user as well. The Mac OSX
scheduler has layered on-top of the typical nice priority levels the concept of foreground and background
scheduling. Basically the Mac window manager can tune the scheduling based on window focus.

I think something like this combined with RSDL could be a worthy experiment. If the window manager can
calculate the "attention" a user gives a window then it could nice it up/down within a small range.
Mac OS X has a nasty behavior of being jerky when switching focus under load. I think this is due to
a simplistic knee-jerk response to window focus in scheduling (or my ibook has to little RAM).

If a linux window manager were to rank the attention of windows, and be smart about cycling between
groups of apps I think three priority levels could be used like this:

1  : foreground ( frequent attention )
2  : background ( infrequent attention )
3  : batchy ( downloaders, other long running infrequently monitored programs )

Think of how easy this is for a window-manager to compute, compared to trying to re-build the
information in-kernel with heuristics.

If this idea is actually pursued there may need to be a new feature in RSDL. With this scheme it is very important
to ensure that a particular nice level does not become overloaded ( think foreground ) . The current linux schedulers
report a load value for the total system. This scheme needs to know the load value for a individual nice level as well,
that way the foreground nice level could remain responsive by worst case kicking a program down a level or two if it
starts becoming unresponsive.

3. Better throughput

I think that this mixed developer work-load is actually the worst case for a scheduler. It has to meet deadlines
and provide decent throughput. Beyond pre-empt and clock precise scheduling I am not sure if there is much more
that can be done for interactive.

I do think that SCHED_BATCH provides alot of room for interesting ideas though since the guarantees are so loose.
As I understand it SCHED_BATCH is guaranteed to not starve and that is about it.

Since I am commenting freely here is a idea to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Is it possible that
the scheduler could compute and combine the deadlines for both audio/video ? If the scheduler can compute
the longest interval between both video/audio refresh then scheduling could be arranged like so:

refresh -> interactive -> batch -> refresh

The interactive processes would run first, that way the risk of missing a refresh would be minimized. Once
the scheduler has ran all the interactive stuff, for the case of a small set of programs such
as audio player and editor, it would be very likely that alot of time is left.

Next assume that the SCHED_BATCH has been sorted into CPU intensive and IO intensive. For the CPU intensive
it would be nice if the scheduler would give it a massive time-slice, why not all the time until the
next refresh point ? Basically reduce the context-switching to mostly interrupts/background noise. 
The SCHED_BATCH programs may take longer to run, as they are being interleaved more than balanced, but I think it's 
possible that overall throughput could be increased considerably. If something like this could be done while
still honoring the nice values (though not as strictly as for interactive programs ) it would be a big win.
With huge time-slices other parts of the system such as VM management might behave more efficiently as well.

I think linux would be quite special if it was the best in throughput efficiency (ignoring completion
time, just how much processor etc used to run the same work-load ) for SETI like work-loads while still 
running a fully responsive interactive desktop.

btw, the above concept is articulated from a distant background of programming a VGA adapter on a 286.
     That the last time I dealt with hard-deadlines hands on. I haven't had a reason to code at bare-metal 
     since I started using linux so please consider it a vehicle for articulating a concept. 

4. Outro

In summary I like the RSDL scheduler quite a bit. It is consistent and doesn't do magic so I can build a
priority scheme on-top of it with a very compact and reliable behavior model. Using the priority levels
seems to allow me to use larger time-slices without sacrificing interactivity. This is unsuprising as
I am actually telling the scheduler what I want ......

I think that the window manager can use simple algorithms to calculate what the kernel would have to guess
at with hairy heuristics. Hacking nice throttling into the window manager combined with a very simple
but reliable scheduler may work pretty well for desktop users. Maybe that will excite someone enough to
go try it, or dig up some existing implementation (other than OSX).

I also think that SCHED_BATCH is where alot of fun experiments can be played. Especially in regards to CPU
intensive programs. This combination is actually quite common I would think in audio/video production.

At this point with how well my system works the itch has been scratched as far as the in-kernel part goes. 
I am interested though in playing around with your idlerun program though. 

Later on , possibly much later I will cook up some better numbers/comparisons. I really don't trust subjective
evaluations of scheduling, my own included. I think people really want a new kernel patch to work better, which 
is a horrible way to start an evaluation. I want to measure both throughput, and interactivity in a double-blind
like way. (random option for grub ?)

With most of my work-load IO bound I expect the performance improvements to come from places like CFQ,ext4,syslet etc.

Thank you to all for a good kernel. Linux user-space is quite comfortable these days.

Cheers,
Mike Mattie - codermattie@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists