Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary Achieving Predictable Timing and Fairness Through Cooperative Polling Anirban (Ani) Sinha Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia November 2, 2007 Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
42
Embed
Achieving Predictable Timing and Fairness Through ...anirban.org/anirbans-thesis-talk.pdfAchieving Predictable Timing and Fairness Through Cooperative Polling Anirban (Ani) Sinha Department
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Achieving Predictable Timing and FairnessThrough Cooperative Polling
Anirban (Ani) Sinha
Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British Columbia
November 2, 2007
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Outline
1 Yet another new scheduler?!Scheduling Challenges in a General Purpose OSEarlier Attempts to Address the IssuesThe Vanilla O(1) Scheduler
2 Our Design Objectives3 Our Approach
The Design of Our SchedulerThe AlgorithmsThe Implementation
4 EvaluationFairshare EvaluationCooperative Polling (+ policing) EvaluationPure Fairshare Vs Cooperative PollingExperiments with High Definition Video
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Scheduling Challenges in a General Purpose OS
The Changing Computing Environment
Multimedia capable (soft) realtime applications areincreasingly becoming common.Many of these applications are adaptive:
They consume as much CPU resources as are available.Adaptive tasks keeps the system overloaded at all times(when adaptation is active).
They are peculiar:They are time-sensitive:
Have specific deadlines for doing certain jobs.
They are often both IO intensive with considerable CPUrequirements.
Other kinds of mixed workloads (e.g., security enabledweb-servers, databases) are also common.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Scheduling Challenges in a General Purpose OS
The New Challenges
Challenges for a task scheduler therefore are as follows:
Provide a good balance of overall throughput andtimeliness.Uphold work conservation
Maximum utilization of available CPU resources.
Allow graceful & coordinated adaptation.
Avoid starvation.
Use an effective strategy for load balancing in SMPenvironments.
We do not address the last issue in this work.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Earlier Attempts to Address the Issues
The space of multimedia scheduling for general purpose OS iswell explored:
Related Works
SMART: Jason Nieh and Monica S. Lam. The design,implementation and evaluation of SMART: a scheduler formultimedia applications. SOSP 1997.
BVT: Kenneth J. Duda and David R. Cheriton.Borrowed-virtual-time (BVT) scheduling: supportinglatency-sensitive threads in a general-purpose scheduler.SOSP 1999.
BEST: Scott A. Banachowski, Scott A. Brandt. The BESTscheduler for integrated processing of best-effort and softreal-time processes. MMCN 2002.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Earlier Attempts to Address the Issues
The drawbacks
Use of complicated schedulability analysis and/orkernel-userspace interaction mechanism.
Use of some notion of priorities that can lead to starvation.Dependence on CPU reservations (or assumption ofunderloaded system) for providing better timing.
Throw away work conservation.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
The Design of Our Scheduler
Design Highlights
Fairshare scheduler based on virtual time to schedule alltasks.
Ensures long term fairness.Borrowing prevents accumulation of virtual time.
All time sensitive tasks form a cooperation group.A common virtual time for the whole group.No fairsharing or allocation enforcement within the group.Tasks in the cooperation group cooperate with one anotherthrough kernel using coop_poll primitive.Tasks within cooperation group are scheduled based ontheir deadlines and best effort priorities.
Preferential treatment and policing of cooperative tasks byfairshare scheduler.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
The Design of Our Scheduler
The coop_poll() Primitive
coop_poll(IN,OUT)IN: Most important deadline and best effort priority event ofthe current task.OUT:
Most important deadline of all the external time sensitivetasks or the fairshare policing deadline, whichever is earlier.Best effort event of all the external time sensitive tasks.
Kernel Responsibility:Resume the task when:
IN parameter deadline has expired (preferential treatment) orIN parameter best effort is most important.
Task Responsibility:Treat the OUT events as it’s ownyield back to kernel using coop_poll when they fire.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
The Design of Our Scheduler
Scheduling Overview
The Scheduling Overview
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
The Algorithms
The Main Kernel Scheduler
Algorithm: schedule()
Global TimeVal sched_granularity;Global TimeVal sched_min_timeslice;schedule() {
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
The Implementation
Implementation Overview
Implementation on 2.6.20 kernel + highres timersHigh resolution timers for timeslice enforcement.Use of fine grained time accounting in the kernel.
Binary heaps for our runqueue.Tasks sorted based on their virtual time.Also two heaps for sorting the time sensitive tasks basedon deadlines and best effort priorities.Heaps implemented with existing kernel runqueue - noseparate locking mechanism needed.
A new system call coop_poll().
We override the vanilla kernel scheduling decision withours.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Outline
1 Yet another new scheduler?!Scheduling Challenges in a General Purpose OSEarlier Attempts to Address the IssuesThe Vanilla O(1) Scheduler
2 Our Design Objectives3 Our Approach
The Design of Our SchedulerThe AlgorithmsThe Implementation
4 EvaluationFairshare EvaluationCooperative Polling (+ policing) EvaluationPure Fairshare Vs Cooperative PollingExperiments with High Definition Video
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Evaluation Strategy
Use a broad spectrum of load conditions: underloaded tofully overloaded.Vary the # of Qstream applications for varying the load.
6 players => CPU just saturated. 12 players => completesaturation.Qstream is a mixed CPU and IO intensive workload.The challenge => achieve coordinated adaptations withgraceful degradation.
Qstream server run on a different machine.Server load has no impact on the client performance.
Enough memory & network bandwidth to handle 12players - no memory pressure.
Stray applets and services on client disabled.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Fairshare Evaluation
Evaluation of Fairshare Scheduling
Salient Points of the Experiment
Qstream applications run as best effort task under thefairshare scheduler.
No cooperation between applications.Frame display disabled.
Xserver has coarse grained event dispatch mechanism -perturbs our results.Effects of Xserver eliminated.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Fairshare Evaluation
Results
Dispatcher Latency
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Aver
age
Tar
din
ess
(ms)
# of Videos
Timeslice: 1 msTimeslice: 10 msTimeslice: 15 ms
Timeslice: 20 msTimeslice: 5 ms
Dispatcher Latency
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Fairshare Evaluation
Results
Throughput vs Monolithic (single player case)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
FP
S t
hro
ugh
put
as %
of
sin
gle
pla
yer
thro
ughput.
# of Videos
Timeslice: 1 msTimeslice: 10 msTimeslice: 15 ms
Timeslice: 20 msTimeslice: 5 ms
Relative Throughputs
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Cooperative Polling (+ policing) Evaluation
Results
Frame Rates
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
100 150 200 250 300 0
25
50
75
100
Fra
mes
per
sec
ond
CP
U U
tili
zati
on (
%)
Video Position (s)
video 1video 2video 3video 4video 5video 6video 7
video 8video 9
video 10video 11video 12
Global CPU
Frame Rate for 12 videos with Xserver run as best effort task.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Pure Fairshare Vs Cooperative Polling
Cooperative Scheduling is Better Than Pure Fairsharing
Results with 10 players
Comparison FairshareScheduler(1 msperiod)
Coop Scheduler
Dispatcher Latency 4.3 ms 0.9 ms
Context Switches 9430 /sec 4766 /sec
Throughput as % of singleplayer
87% 95%
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Experiments with High Definition Video
Performance Evaluation with High Definition Video
Salient Points of the Experiment
A single Qstream player playing a 1080p high definitionvideo, 679.2 kbyte/s bit-rate and 25 FPS.
The single video alone can take 70% of CPU.
A best effort video encoding job run in parallel tocompletely saturate the CPU.
Represents a common scenario where users watching ahigh definition video perform some video/audio encodingwork in parallel.Xserver run as a best effort task in our fairshare scheduler.
Scheduled according to vanilla heuristics on the vanillakernel.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Experiments with High Definition Video
Results
Dispatcher Latency as a function of global scheduling period
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Summary
Fairshare scheduling alone provides a baselineperformance proportional to global period.
The cost of smaller period and finer grained scheduling ishigh context switch overhead.Cooperative polling can provide improved timeliness withreduced context switch overheads.
Informed context switches are less expensive.Helps to achieve coordinated adaptation.
Policing through fairsharing ensures long term fairness inthe system with no starvation.
Anirban (Ani) Sinha M.Sc Thesis Presentation
Yet another new scheduler?! Our Design Objectives Our Approach Evaluation Summary
Project Resources
Everything is Open Source!
Project URL: http://dsg.cs.ubc.ca/coopfschedContains project updates, publications and code repositorycheckout URLs.
Qstream source: http://Qstream.orgHas all the benchmark scripts.