| Deadline Task Scheduling |
| ------------------------ |
| |
| CONTENTS |
| ======== |
| |
| 0. WARNING |
| 1. Overview |
| 2. Scheduling algorithm |
| 3. Scheduling Real-Time Tasks |
| 4. Bandwidth management |
| 4.1 System-wide settings |
| 4.2 Task interface |
| 4.3 Default behavior |
| 5. Tasks CPU affinity |
| 5.1 SCHED_DEADLINE and cpusets HOWTO |
| 6. Future plans |
| |
| |
| 0. WARNING |
| ========== |
| |
| Fiddling with these settings can result in an unpredictable or even unstable |
| system behavior. As for -rt (group) scheduling, it is assumed that root users |
| know what they're doing. |
| |
| |
| 1. Overview |
| =========== |
| |
| The SCHED_DEADLINE policy contained inside the sched_dl scheduling class is |
| basically an implementation of the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) scheduling |
| algorithm, augmented with a mechanism (called Constant Bandwidth Server, CBS) |
| that makes it possible to isolate the behavior of tasks between each other. |
| |
| |
| 2. Scheduling algorithm |
| ================== |
| |
| SCHED_DEADLINE uses three parameters, named "runtime", "period", and |
| "deadline" to schedule tasks. A SCHED_DEADLINE task is guaranteed to receive |
| "runtime" microseconds of execution time every "period" microseconds, and |
| these "runtime" microseconds are available within "deadline" microseconds |
| from the beginning of the period. In order to implement this behaviour, |
| every time the task wakes up, the scheduler computes a "scheduling deadline" |
| consistent with the guarantee (using the CBS[2,3] algorithm). Tasks are then |
| scheduled using EDF[1] on these scheduling deadlines (the task with the |
| smallest scheduling deadline is selected for execution). Notice that this |
| guaranteed is respected if a proper "admission control" strategy (see Section |
| "4. Bandwidth management") is used. |
| |
| Summing up, the CBS[2,3] algorithms assigns scheduling deadlines to tasks so |
| that each task runs for at most its runtime every period, avoiding any |
| interference between different tasks (bandwidth isolation), while the EDF[1] |
| algorithm selects the task with the smallest scheduling deadline as the one |
| to be executed first. Thanks to this feature, also tasks that do not |
| strictly comply with the "traditional" real-time task model (see Section 3) |
| can effectively use the new policy. |
| |
| In more details, the CBS algorithm assigns scheduling deadlines to |
| tasks in the following way: |
| |
| - Each SCHED_DEADLINE task is characterised by the "runtime", |
| "deadline", and "period" parameters; |
| |
| - The state of the task is described by a "scheduling deadline", and |
| a "current runtime". These two parameters are initially set to 0; |
| |
| - When a SCHED_DEADLINE task wakes up (becomes ready for execution), |
| the scheduler checks if |
| |
| current runtime runtime |
| ---------------------------------- > ---------------- |
| scheduling deadline - current time period |
| |
| then, if the scheduling deadline is smaller than the current time, or |
| this condition is verified, the scheduling deadline and the |
| current budget are re-initialised as |
| |
| scheduling deadline = current time + deadline |
| current runtime = runtime |
| |
| otherwise, the scheduling deadline and the current runtime are |
| left unchanged; |
| |
| - When a SCHED_DEADLINE task executes for an amount of time t, its |
| current runtime is decreased as |
| |
| current runtime = current runtime - t |
| |
| (technically, the runtime is decreased at every tick, or when the |
| task is descheduled / preempted); |
| |
| - When the current runtime becomes less or equal than 0, the task is |
| said to be "throttled" (also known as "depleted" in real-time literature) |
| and cannot be scheduled until its scheduling deadline. The "replenishment |
| time" for this task (see next item) is set to be equal to the current |
| value of the scheduling deadline; |
| |
| - When the current time is equal to the replenishment time of a |
| throttled task, the scheduling deadline and the current runtime are |
| updated as |
| |
| scheduling deadline = scheduling deadline + period |
| current runtime = current runtime + runtime |
| |
| |
| 3. Scheduling Real-Time Tasks |
| ============================= |
| |
| * BIG FAT WARNING ****************************************************** |
| * |
| * This section contains a (not-thorough) summary on classical deadline |
| * scheduling theory, and how it applies to SCHED_DEADLINE. |
| * The reader can "safely" skip to Section 4 if only interested in seeing |
| * how the scheduling policy can be used. Anyway, we strongly recommend |
| * to come back here and continue reading (once the urge for testing is |
| * satisfied :P) to be sure of fully understanding all technical details. |
| ************************************************************************ |
| |
| There are no limitations on what kind of task can exploit this new |
| scheduling discipline, even if it must be said that it is particularly |
| suited for periodic or sporadic real-time tasks that need guarantees on their |
| timing behavior, e.g., multimedia, streaming, control applications, etc. |
| |
| A typical real-time task is composed of a repetition of computation phases |
| (task instances, or jobs) which are activated on a periodic or sporadic |
| fashion. |
| Each job J_j (where J_j is the j^th job of the task) is characterised by an |
| arrival time r_j (the time when the job starts), an amount of computation |
| time c_j needed to finish the job, and a job absolute deadline d_j, which |
| is the time within which the job should be finished. The maximum execution |
| time max_j{c_j} is called "Worst Case Execution Time" (WCET) for the task. |
| A real-time task can be periodic with period P if r_{j+1} = r_j + P, or |
| sporadic with minimum inter-arrival time P is r_{j+1} >= r_j + P. Finally, |
| d_j = r_j + D, where D is the task's relative deadline. |
| |
| SCHED_DEADLINE can be used to schedule real-time tasks guaranteeing that |
| the jobs' deadlines of a task are respected. In order to do this, a task |
| must be scheduled by setting: |
| |
| - runtime >= WCET |
| - deadline = D |
| - period <= P |
| |
| IOW, if runtime >= WCET and if period is >= P, then the scheduling deadlines |
| and the absolute deadlines (d_j) coincide, so a proper admission control |
| allows to respect the jobs' absolute deadlines for this task (this is what is |
| called "hard schedulability property" and is an extension of Lemma 1 of [2]). |
| |
| References: |
| 1 - C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogram- |
| ming in a hard-real-time environment. Journal of the Association for |
| Computing Machinery, 20(1), 1973. |
| 2 - L. Abeni , G. Buttazzo. Integrating Multimedia Applications in Hard |
| Real-Time Systems. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Real-time Systems |
| Symposium, 1998. http://retis.sssup.it/~giorgio/paps/1998/rtss98-cbs.pdf |
| 3 - L. Abeni. Server Mechanisms for Multimedia Applications. ReTiS Lab |
| Technical Report. http://xoomer.virgilio.it/lucabe72/pubs/tr-98-01.ps |
| |
| 4. Bandwidth management |
| ======================= |
| |
| In order for the -deadline scheduling to be effective and useful, it is |
| important to have some method to keep the allocation of the available CPU |
| bandwidth to the tasks under control. |
| This is usually called "admission control" and if it is not performed at all, |
| no guarantee can be given on the actual scheduling of the -deadline tasks. |
| |
| Since when RT-throttling has been introduced each task group has a bandwidth |
| associated, calculated as a certain amount of runtime over a period. |
| Moreover, to make it possible to manipulate such bandwidth, readable/writable |
| controls have been added to both procfs (for system wide settings) and cgroupfs |
| (for per-group settings). |
| Therefore, the same interface is being used for controlling the bandwidth |
| distrubution to -deadline tasks. |
| |
| However, more discussion is needed in order to figure out how we want to manage |
| SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth at the task group level. Therefore, SCHED_DEADLINE |
| uses (for now) a less sophisticated, but actually very sensible, mechanism to |
| ensure that a certain utilization cap is not overcome per each root_domain. |
| |
| Another main difference between deadline bandwidth management and RT-throttling |
| is that -deadline tasks have bandwidth on their own (while -rt ones don't!), |
| and thus we don't need an higher level throttling mechanism to enforce the |
| desired bandwidth. |
| |
| 4.1 System wide settings |
| ------------------------ |
| |
| The system wide settings are configured under the /proc virtual file system. |
| |
| For now the -rt knobs are used for dl admission control and the -deadline |
| runtime is accounted against the -rt runtime. We realise that this isn't |
| entirely desirable; however, it is better to have a small interface for now, |
| and be able to change it easily later. The ideal situation (see 5.) is to run |
| -rt tasks from a -deadline server; in which case the -rt bandwidth is a direct |
| subset of dl_bw. |
| |
| This means that, for a root_domain comprising M CPUs, -deadline tasks |
| can be created while the sum of their bandwidths stays below: |
| |
| M * (sched_rt_runtime_us / sched_rt_period_us) |
| |
| It is also possible to disable this bandwidth management logic, and |
| be thus free of oversubscribing the system up to any arbitrary level. |
| This is done by writing -1 in /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us. |
| |
| |
| 4.2 Task interface |
| ------------------ |
| |
| Specifying a periodic/sporadic task that executes for a given amount of |
| runtime at each instance, and that is scheduled according to the urgency of |
| its own timing constraints needs, in general, a way of declaring: |
| - a (maximum/typical) instance execution time, |
| - a minimum interval between consecutive instances, |
| - a time constraint by which each instance must be completed. |
| |
| Therefore: |
| * a new struct sched_attr, containing all the necessary fields is |
| provided; |
| * the new scheduling related syscalls that manipulate it, i.e., |
| sched_setattr() and sched_getattr() are implemented. |
| |
| |
| 4.3 Default behavior |
| --------------------- |
| |
| The default value for SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth is to have rt_runtime equal to |
| 950000. With rt_period equal to 1000000, by default, it means that -deadline |
| tasks can use at most 95%, multiplied by the number of CPUs that compose the |
| root_domain, for each root_domain. |
| |
| A -deadline task cannot fork. |
| |
| 5. Tasks CPU affinity |
| ===================== |
| |
| -deadline tasks cannot have an affinity mask smaller that the entire |
| root_domain they are created on. However, affinities can be specified |
| through the cpuset facility (Documentation/cgroups/cpusets.txt). |
| |
| 5.1 SCHED_DEADLINE and cpusets HOWTO |
| ------------------------------------ |
| |
| An example of a simple configuration (pin a -deadline task to CPU0) |
| follows (rt-app is used to create a -deadline task). |
| |
| mkdir /dev/cpuset |
| mount -t cgroup -o cpuset cpuset /dev/cpuset |
| cd /dev/cpuset |
| mkdir cpu0 |
| echo 0 > cpu0/cpuset.cpus |
| echo 0 > cpu0/cpuset.mems |
| echo 1 > cpuset.cpu_exclusive |
| echo 0 > cpuset.sched_load_balance |
| echo 1 > cpu0/cpuset.cpu_exclusive |
| echo 1 > cpu0/cpuset.mem_exclusive |
| echo $$ > cpu0/tasks |
| rt-app -t 100000:10000:d:0 -D5 (it is now actually superfluous to specify |
| task affinity) |
| |
| 6. Future plans |
| =============== |
| |
| Still missing: |
| |
| - refinements to deadline inheritance, especially regarding the possibility |
| of retaining bandwidth isolation among non-interacting tasks. This is |
| being studied from both theoretical and practical points of view, and |
| hopefully we should be able to produce some demonstrative code soon; |
| - (c)group based bandwidth management, and maybe scheduling; |
| - access control for non-root users (and related security concerns to |
| address), which is the best way to allow unprivileged use of the mechanisms |
| and how to prevent non-root users "cheat" the system? |
| |
| As already discussed, we are planning also to merge this work with the EDF |
| throttling patches [https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/23/239] but we still are in |
| the preliminary phases of the merge and we really seek feedback that would |
| help us decide on the direction it should take. |