| ========= | |
| Schedutil | |
| ========= | |
| .. 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 | |
| ======== | |
| 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. UTIL_EST filters 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. | |