diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/scheduler/sched-nice-design.txt | 108 |
1 files changed, 108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-nice-design.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-nice-design.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3ac1e46d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-nice-design.txt @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +This document explains the thinking about the revamped and streamlined +nice-levels implementation in the new Linux scheduler. + +Nice levels were always pretty weak under Linux and people continuously +pestered us to make nice +19 tasks use up much less CPU time. + +Unfortunately that was not that easy to implement under the old +scheduler, (otherwise we'd have done it long ago) because nice level +support was historically coupled to timeslice length, and timeslice +units were driven by the HZ tick, so the smallest timeslice was 1/HZ. + +In the O(1) scheduler (in 2003) we changed negative nice levels to be +much stronger than they were before in 2.4 (and people were happy about +that change), and we also intentionally calibrated the linear timeslice +rule so that nice +19 level would be _exactly_ 1 jiffy. To better +understand it, the timeslice graph went like this (cheesy ASCII art +alert!): + + + A + \ | [timeslice length] + \ | + \ | + \ | + \ | + \|___100msecs + |^ . _ + | ^ . _ + | ^ . _ + -*----------------------------------*-----> [nice level] + -20 | +19 + | + | + +So that if someone wanted to really renice tasks, +19 would give a much +bigger hit than the normal linear rule would do. (The solution of +changing the ABI to extend priorities was discarded early on.) + +This approach worked to some degree for some time, but later on with +HZ=1000 it caused 1 jiffy to be 1 msec, which meant 0.1% CPU usage which +we felt to be a bit excessive. Excessive _not_ because it's too small of +a CPU utilization, but because it causes too frequent (once per +millisec) rescheduling. (and would thus trash the cache, etc. Remember, +this was long ago when hardware was weaker and caches were smaller, and +people were running number crunching apps at nice +19.) + +So for HZ=1000 we changed nice +19 to 5msecs, because that felt like the +right minimal granularity - and this translates to 5% CPU utilization. +But the fundamental HZ-sensitive property for nice+19 still remained, +and we never got a single complaint about nice +19 being too _weak_ in +terms of CPU utilization, we only got complaints about it (still) being +too _strong_ :-) + +To sum it up: we always wanted to make nice levels more consistent, but +within the constraints of HZ and jiffies and their nasty design level +coupling to timeslices and granularity it was not really viable. + +The second (less frequent but still periodically occurring) complaint +about Linux's nice level support was its assymetry around the origo +(which you can see demonstrated in the picture above), or more +accurately: the fact that nice level behavior depended on the _absolute_ +nice level as well, while the nice API itself is fundamentally +"relative": + + int nice(int inc); + + asmlinkage long sys_nice(int increment) + +(the first one is the glibc API, the second one is the syscall API.) +Note that the 'inc' is relative to the current nice level. Tools like +bash's "nice" command mirror this relative API. + +With the old scheduler, if you for example started a niced task with +1 +and another task with +2, the CPU split between the two tasks would +depend on the nice level of the parent shell - if it was at nice -10 the +CPU split was different than if it was at +5 or +10. + +A third complaint against Linux's nice level support was that negative +nice levels were not 'punchy enough', so lots of people had to resort to +run audio (and other multimedia) apps under RT priorities such as +SCHED_FIFO. But this caused other problems: SCHED_FIFO is not starvation +proof, and a buggy SCHED_FIFO app can also lock up the system for good. + +The new scheduler in v2.6.23 addresses all three types of complaints: + +To address the first complaint (of nice levels being not "punchy" +enough), the scheduler was decoupled from 'time slice' and HZ concepts +(and granularity was made a separate concept from nice levels) and thus +it was possible to implement better and more consistent nice +19 +support: with the new scheduler nice +19 tasks get a HZ-independent +1.5%, instead of the variable 3%-5%-9% range they got in the old +scheduler. + +To address the second complaint (of nice levels not being consistent), +the new scheduler makes nice(1) have the same CPU utilization effect on +tasks, regardless of their absolute nice levels. So on the new +scheduler, running a nice +10 and a nice 11 task has the same CPU +utilization "split" between them as running a nice -5 and a nice -4 +task. (one will get 55% of the CPU, the other 45%.) That is why nice +levels were changed to be "multiplicative" (or exponential) - that way +it does not matter which nice level you start out from, the 'relative +result' will always be the same. + +The third complaint (of negative nice levels not being "punchy" enough +and forcing audio apps to run under the more dangerous SCHED_FIFO +scheduling policy) is addressed by the new scheduler almost +automatically: stronger negative nice levels are an automatic +side-effect of the recalibrated dynamic range of nice levels. |