| |
| |
| NOTE; all this assumes a linear relation between frequency and work capacity, |
| we know this is flawed, but it is the best workable approximation. |
| |
| |
| PELT (Per Entity Load Tracking) |
| ------------------------------- |
| |
| With PELT we track some metrics across the various scheduler entities, from |
| individual tasks to task-group slices to CPU runqueues. As the basis for this |
| we use an Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA), each period (1024us) |
| is decayed such that y^32 = 0.5. That is, the most recent 32ms contribute |
| half, while the rest of history contribute the other half. |
| |
| Specifically: |
| |
| ewma_sum(u) := u_0 + u_1*y + u_2*y^2 + ... |
| |
| ewma(u) = ewma_sum(u) / ewma_sum(1) |
| |
| Since this is essentially a progression of an infinite geometric series, the |
| results are composable, that is ewma(A) + ewma(B) = ewma(A+B). This property |
| is key, since it gives the ability to recompose the averages when tasks move |
| around. |
| |
| Note that blocked tasks still contribute to the aggregates (task-group slices |
| and CPU runqueues), which reflects their expected contribution when they |
| resume running. |
| |
| Using this we track 2 key metrics: 'running' and 'runnable'. 'Running' |
| reflects the time an entity spends on the CPU, while 'runnable' reflects the |
| time an entity spends on the runqueue. When there is only a single task these |
| two metrics are the same, but once there is contention for the CPU 'running' |
| will decrease to reflect the fraction of time each task spends on the CPU |
| while 'runnable' will increase to reflect the amount of contention. |
| |
| For more detail see: kernel/sched/pelt.c |
| |
| |
| Frequency- / CPU Invariance |
| --------------------------- |
| |
| Because consuming the CPU for 50% at 1GHz is not the same as consuming the CPU |
| for 50% at 2GHz, nor is running 50% on a LITTLE CPU the same as running 50% on |
| a big CPU, we allow architectures to scale the time delta with two ratios, one |
| Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) ratio and one microarch ratio. |
| |
| For simple DVFS architectures (where software is in full control) we trivially |
| compute the ratio as: |
| |
| f_cur |
| r_dvfs := ----- |
| f_max |
| |
| For more dynamic systems where the hardware is in control of DVFS we use |
| hardware counters (Intel APERF/MPERF, ARMv8.4-AMU) to provide us this ratio. |
| For Intel specifically, we use: |
| |
| APERF |
| f_cur := ----- * P0 |
| MPERF |
| |
| 4C-turbo; if available and turbo enabled |
| f_max := { 1C-turbo; if turbo enabled |
| P0; otherwise |
| |
| f_cur |
| r_dvfs := min( 1, ----- ) |
| f_max |
| |
| We pick 4C turbo over 1C turbo to make it slightly more sustainable. |
| |
| r_cpu is determined as the ratio of highest performance level of the current |
| CPU vs the highest performance level of any other CPU in the system. |
| |
| r_tot = r_dvfs * r_cpu |
| |
| The result is that the above 'running' and 'runnable' metrics become invariant |
| of DVFS and CPU type. IOW. we can transfer and compare them between CPUs. |
| |
| For more detail see: |
| |
| - kernel/sched/pelt.h:update_rq_clock_pelt() |
| - arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:"APERF/MPERF frequency ratio computation." |
| - Documentation/scheduler/sched-capacity.rst:"1. CPU Capacity + 2. Task utilization" |
| |
| |
| UTIL_EST / UTIL_EST_FASTUP |
| -------------------------- |
| |
| Because periodic tasks have their averages decayed while they sleep, even |
| though when running their expected utilization will be the same, they suffer a |
| (DVFS) ramp-up after they are running again. |
| |
| To alleviate this (a default enabled option) UTIL_EST drives an Infinite |
| Impulse Response (IIR) EWMA with the 'running' value on dequeue -- when it is |
| highest. A further default enabled option UTIL_EST_FASTUP modifies the IIR |
| filter to instantly increase and only decay on decrease. |
| |
| A further runqueue wide sum (of runnable tasks) is maintained of: |
| |
| util_est := \Sum_t max( t_running, t_util_est_ewma ) |
| |
| For more detail see: kernel/sched/fair.c:util_est_dequeue() |
| |
| |
| UCLAMP |
| ------ |
| |
| It is possible to set effective u_min and u_max clamps on each CFS or RT task; |
| the runqueue keeps an max aggregate of these clamps for all running tasks. |
| |
| For more detail see: include/uapi/linux/sched/types.h |
| |
| |
| Schedutil / DVFS |
| ---------------- |
| |
| Every time the scheduler load tracking is updated (task wakeup, task |
| migration, time progression) we call out to schedutil to update the hardware |
| DVFS state. |
| |
| The basis is the CPU runqueue's 'running' metric, which per the above it is |
| the frequency invariant utilization estimate of the CPU. From this we compute |
| a desired frequency like: |
| |
| max( running, util_est ); if UTIL_EST |
| u_cfs := { running; otherwise |
| |
| clamp( u_cfs + u_rt , u_min, u_max ); if UCLAMP_TASK |
| u_clamp := { u_cfs + u_rt; otherwise |
| |
| u := u_clamp + u_irq + u_dl; [approx. see source for more detail] |
| |
| f_des := min( f_max, 1.25 u * f_max ) |
| |
| XXX IO-wait; when the update is due to a task wakeup from IO-completion we |
| boost 'u' above. |
| |
| This frequency is then used to select a P-state/OPP or directly munged into a |
| CPPC style request to the hardware. |
| |
| XXX: deadline tasks (Sporadic Task Model) allows us to calculate a hard f_min |
| required to satisfy the workload. |
| |
| Because these callbacks are directly from the scheduler, the DVFS hardware |
| interaction should be 'fast' and non-blocking. Schedutil supports |
| rate-limiting DVFS requests for when hardware interaction is slow and |
| expensive, this reduces effectiveness. |
| |
| For more information see: kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c |
| |
| |
| NOTES |
| ----- |
| |
| - On low-load scenarios, where DVFS is most relevant, the 'running' numbers |
| will closely reflect utilization. |
| |
| - In saturated scenarios task movement will cause some transient dips, |
| suppose we have a CPU saturated with 4 tasks, then when we migrate a task |
| to an idle CPU, the old CPU will have a 'running' value of 0.75 while the |
| new CPU will gain 0.25. This is inevitable and time progression will |
| correct this. XXX do we still guarantee f_max due to no idle-time? |
| |
| - Much of the above is about avoiding DVFS dips, and independent DVFS domains |
| having to re-learn / ramp-up when load shifts. |
| |