Message-Id: <1247135773.9777.357.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:36:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Use EDF to throttle RT task groups

Hi Fabio,

Sorry for the delay, but we already spoke in person about this last
week, a bit more detail here.

On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 20:55 +0200, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> This patchset introduces a group level EDF scheduler to extend the
> current throttling mechanism, in order to make it support generic
> period assignments.  With this patch, the rt_runtime and rt_period
> parameters can be used to specify arbitrary CPU reservations for
> RT tasks.

> This is an early RFC, I'm interested in having an idea of what people
> think about this feature, if it's worth working on it, what can be
> improved in the design, etc.
> 
> The main design issues involved:
> 
>   - It is no more possible to specify RUNTIME_INF for a task group
>     when throttling is enabled.  Rationale: supporting both throttled
>     and unthrottled groups would have required too much extra complexity
>     (I didn't find anything simpler than two parallel runqueues, one for
>     throttled and one for unthrottled groups).

I would think this is more than reasonable to the point that I wonder if
it was possible to begin with. I was assuming the current bandwidth
validation stuff would already exclude this possibility.

>   - Since it is not easy to mix tasks and groups on the same scheduler
>     queue (tasks have no deadlines), the bandwidth reserved to the tasks
>     in a group is controlled with two additional cgroup attributes:
>     rt_task_runtime_us and rt_task_period_us.  These attrinutes control,
>     within a cgroup, how much bandwidth is reserved to the tasks it
>     contains.

Agreed.

>   - Shared resources are still handled using boosting.  When a group
>     contains a task inside a critical section it is scheduled according
>     the highest priority among the ones of the tasks it contains.
>     In this way, the same group has two modes: when it is not boosted
>     it is scheduled according to its deadline; when it is boosted, it
>     is scheduled according its priority.  Boosted groups are always
>     favored over non-boosted ones.

Yeah, for now this PCP like solution is the best we have. Preferably
we'll come up with something really smart soon :-)

>   - The old priority array is now gone.  To use only a single data
>     structure for entities using both priorities and deadlines (due
>     to boosting), the only possible choice was to use an rb-tree;
>     the function used to order the keys takes into account the
>     prioritization described above (boosted tasks, ordered by
>     priority are favored to non-boosted tasks, ordered by increasing
>     deadline).
> 
>   - Given that the various rt_rq's belonging to the same task group
>     are activated independently, there is the need of a timer per
>     each rt_rq.

Like I suggested last week, we could flatten the full hierarchy to a 2
level one, the top level being a EDF like scheduler which purely
schedules the 'phantom' task groups as created by the new rt_task_*_us
parameters.

Once such a task group is selected we use the regular FIFO rules to pick
a task.

Further, like mentioned, you remove the bandwidth distribution between
cpus in patch 4. You do this because you schedule the groups using PEDF,
however I was thinking that when we use GEDF to schedule the groups we
can use the theory from:

  H. Leontyev and J. Anderson, " A Hierarchical Multiprocessor Bandwidth
  Reservation Scheme with Timing Guarantees ", Proceedings of the 20th
  Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, pp. 191-200, July 200

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~anderson/papers/ecrts08c.pdf

This would allow us to lift this constraint.

As to load-balancing. The current scheme of load-balancing the tasks
utterly ignores the deadline settings and would also need some suitable
changes. I fear this part will be a little more challenging.

I would think that by using the GEDF and minimal concurrency group
scheduling we'd get the desired deadline behaviour. After that we'd get
the task of selecting the FIFO tasks within the dynamic vcpu range
resulting from the deadline server.

We could simply implement global-fifo to make it work, and then move
towards adapting the current (!group) load-balancer to work within these
more dynamic constraints.

Thoughts?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists