Re: Periodic rant about SCHED_ULE
- Reply: Mateusz Guzik : "Re: Periodic rant about SCHED_ULE"
- In reply to: Kevin Bowling : "Re: Periodic rant about SCHED_ULE"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:39:56 UTC
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:29 AM Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:37 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I looked into it a little more, below you can find summary and steps forward. > > > > First a general statement: while ULE does have performance bugs, it > > has better basis than 4BSD to make scheduling decisions. Most notably > > it understands CPU topology, at least for cases which don't involve > > big.LITTLE. For any non-freak case where 4BSD performs better, it is a > > bug in ULE if this is for any reason other than a tradeoff which can > > be tweaked to line them up. Or more to the point, there should not be > > any legitimate reason to use 4BSD these days and modulo the bugs > > below, you are probably losing on performance for doing so. > > An elided simple algorithm for big.LITTLE, from Larry McVoy.. if you > run for an entire quantum, flag preference for big core. If you run > for less or get punted off, flag for little core preference. > > > Bugs reported in this thread by others and confirmed by me: > > 1. failure to load-balance when having n CPUs and n + 1 workers -- the > > excess one stays on one the same CPU thread continuously penalizing > > the same victim. as a result total real time to execute a finite > > computation is longer than in the case of 4BSD > > 2. unfairness of nice -n 20 threads vs threads going frequently off > > CPU (e.g., due to I/O) -- after using only a fraction of the slice the > > victim has to wait for the cpu hog to use up its entire slice, rinse > > and repeat. This extends a 7+ minute buildkernel to over 67 minutes, > > not an issue on 4BSD > > > > I did not put almost any effort into investigating no 1. There is code > > which is supposed to rebalance load across CPUs, someone(tm) will have > > to sit through it -- for all I know the fix is trivial. > > > > Fixing number 2 makes *another* bug more acute and it complicates the > > whole ordeal. > > > > Thus, bug reported by me: > > 3. interactivity scoring is bogus -- originally introduced to detect > > "interactive" behavior by equating being off CPU with waiting for user > > input. One part of the problem is that it puts *all* non-preempted off > > CPU time into one bag: a voluntary sleep. This includes suffering from > > lock contention in the kernel, lock contention in the program itself, > > file I/O and so on, none of which has bearing on how interactive or > > not the program might happen to be. A bigger part of the problem is > > that at least today, the graphical programs don't even act this way to > > begin with -- they stay on CPU *a lot*. > > > > I asked people to provide me with the output of: dtrace -n > > 'sched:::on-cpu { @[execname] = lquantize(curthread->td_priority, 0, > > 224, 1); }' from their laptops/desktops. > > > > One finding is that most people (at least those who reported) use firefox. > > > > Another finding is that the browser is above the threshold which would > > be considered "interactive" for vast majority of the time in all > > reported cases. > > > > I booted a 2 thread vm with xfce and decided to click around. Spawned > > firefox, opened a file manager (Thunar) and from there I opened a > > movie to play with mpv. As root I spawned make -j 2 buildkernel. it > > was not particularly good :) > > > > I found that mpv spawns a bunch of threads, most notably 2 distinct > > threads for audio and video output. The one for video got a priority > > of 175, while the rest had either 88 or 89 -- the lowest for > > timesharing not considered interactive [note lower is considered > > better]. > > > > At the same time the file manager who was left in the background kept > > doing evil syscall usage, which as a result bouncing between a regular > > timesharing priority and one which made it "interactive", even though > > the program was not touched for minutes. > > > > Or to put it differently, the scheduler failed to recognize that mpv > > is the program to prioritize, all while thinking the background time > > waster is the thing to look after (so to speak). > > > > This brings us to fixing problem 2: currently, due to the existence of > > said problem, the interactivity scoring woes are less acute -- the > > venerable make -j example is struggling to get CPU time, as a result > > messing with real interactive programs to a lesser extent. If that > > gets fixed, we are in a different boat altogether. > > > > I don't see a clean solution. One other random anecdote. Windows 11 uses window focus to highly boost scheduling priority in an obviously effective way. I have no idea how difficult something like that would be to fit into the unix world. > > Right now I'm toying with the idea of either: > > 1. having programs explicitly tell the kernel they are interactive > > 2. adding a scheduler hook to /dev/dsp -- the observation is that if a > > program is producing sound it probably should get some cpu time in a > > timely manner. this would cover audio/video players and web browsers, > > but would not cover other programs (say a pdf reader). it may be it is > > good enough though > > > > -- > > Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com> > >