freebsd-dev/sys/kern/sched_core.c

1742 lines
41 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2005-2006, David Xu <yfxu@corp.netease.com>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice unmodified, this list of conditions, and the following
* disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
* OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
* IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
* INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
* NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
* DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
* THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
* THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/
#include <sys/cdefs.h>
__FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
#include "opt_hwpmc_hooks.h"
#include "opt_sched.h"
#define kse td_sched
#include <sys/param.h>
#include <sys/systm.h>
#include <sys/kdb.h>
#include <sys/kernel.h>
#include <sys/kthread.h>
#include <sys/ktr.h>
#include <sys/lock.h>
#include <sys/mutex.h>
#include <sys/proc.h>
#include <sys/resource.h>
#include <sys/resourcevar.h>
#include <sys/sched.h>
#include <sys/smp.h>
#include <sys/sx.h>
#include <sys/sysctl.h>
#include <sys/sysproto.h>
#include <sys/turnstile.h>
#include <sys/unistd.h>
#include <sys/vmmeter.h>
#ifdef KTRACE
#include <sys/uio.h>
#include <sys/ktrace.h>
#endif
#ifdef HWPMC_HOOKS
#include <sys/pmckern.h>
#endif
#include <machine/cpu.h>
#include <machine/smp.h>
/* get process's nice value, skip value 20 which is not supported */
#define PROC_NICE(p) MIN((p)->p_nice, 19)
/* convert nice to kernel thread priority */
#define NICE_TO_PRI(nice) (PUSER + 20 + (nice))
/* get process's static priority */
#define PROC_PRI(p) NICE_TO_PRI(PROC_NICE(p))
/* convert kernel thread priority to user priority */
#define USER_PRI(pri) MIN((pri) - PUSER, 39)
/* convert nice value to user priority */
#define PROC_USER_PRI(p) (PROC_NICE(p) + 20)
/* maximum user priority, highest prio + 1 */
#define MAX_USER_PRI 40
/* maximum kernel priority its nice is 19 */
#define PUSER_MAX (PUSER + 39)
/* ticks and nanosecond converters */
#define NS_TO_HZ(n) ((n) / (1000000000 / hz))
#define HZ_TO_NS(h) ((h) * (1000000000 / hz))
/* ticks and microsecond converters */
#define MS_TO_HZ(m) ((m) / (1000000 / hz))
#define PRI_SCORE_RATIO 25
#define MAX_SCORE (MAX_USER_PRI * PRI_SCORE_RATIO / 100)
#define MAX_SLEEP_TIME (def_timeslice * MAX_SCORE)
#define NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME (HZ_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_TIME))
#define STARVATION_TIME (MAX_SLEEP_TIME)
#define CURRENT_SCORE(kg) \
(MAX_SCORE * NS_TO_HZ((kg)->kg_slptime) / MAX_SLEEP_TIME)
#define SCALE_USER_PRI(x, upri) \
MAX(x * (upri + 1) / (MAX_USER_PRI/2), min_timeslice)
/*
* For a thread whose nice is zero, the score is used to determine
* if it is an interactive thread.
*/
#define INTERACTIVE_BASE_SCORE (MAX_SCORE * 20)/100
/*
* Calculate a score which a thread must have to prove itself is
* an interactive thread.
*/
#define INTERACTIVE_SCORE(ke) \
(PROC_NICE((ke)->ke_proc) * MAX_SCORE / 40 + INTERACTIVE_BASE_SCORE)
/* Test if a thread is an interactive thread */
#define THREAD_IS_INTERACTIVE(ke) \
((ke)->ke_ksegrp->kg_user_pri <= \
PROC_PRI((ke)->ke_proc) - INTERACTIVE_SCORE(ke))
/*
* Calculate how long a thread must sleep to prove itself is an
* interactive sleep.
*/
#define INTERACTIVE_SLEEP_TIME(ke) \
(HZ_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_TIME * \
(MAX_SCORE / 2 + INTERACTIVE_SCORE((ke)) + 1) / MAX_SCORE - 1))
#define CHILD_WEIGHT 90
#define PARENT_WEIGHT 90
#define EXIT_WEIGHT 3
#define SCHED_LOAD_SCALE 128UL
#define IDLE 0
#define IDLE_IDLE 1
#define NOT_IDLE 2
#define KQB_LEN (8) /* Number of priority status words. */
#define KQB_L2BPW (5) /* Log2(sizeof(rqb_word_t) * NBBY)). */
#define KQB_BPW (1<<KQB_L2BPW) /* Bits in an rqb_word_t. */
#define KQB_BIT(pri) (1 << ((pri) & (KQB_BPW - 1)))
#define KQB_WORD(pri) ((pri) >> KQB_L2BPW)
#define KQB_FFS(word) (ffs(word) - 1)
#define KQ_NQS 256
/*
* Type of run queue status word.
*/
typedef u_int32_t kqb_word_t;
/*
* Head of run queues.
*/
TAILQ_HEAD(krqhead, kse);
/*
* Bit array which maintains the status of a run queue. When a queue is
* non-empty the bit corresponding to the queue number will be set.
*/
struct krqbits {
kqb_word_t rqb_bits[KQB_LEN];
};
/*
* Run queue structure. Contains an array of run queues on which processes
* are placed, and a structure to maintain the status of each queue.
*/
struct krunq {
struct krqbits rq_status;
struct krqhead rq_queues[KQ_NQS];
};
/*
* The following datastructures are allocated within their parent structure
* but are scheduler specific.
*/
/*
* The schedulable entity that can be given a context to run. A process may
* have several of these.
*/
struct kse {
struct thread *ke_thread; /* (*) Active associated thread. */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
TAILQ_ENTRY(kse) ke_procq; /* (j/z) Run queue. */
int ke_flags; /* (j) KEF_* flags. */
fixpt_t ke_pctcpu; /* (j) %cpu during p_swtime. */
u_char ke_rqindex; /* (j) Run queue index. */
enum {
KES_THREAD = 0x0, /* slaved to thread state */
KES_ONRUNQ
} ke_state; /* (j) thread sched specific status. */
int ke_slice; /* Time slice in ticks */
struct kseq *ke_kseq; /* Kseq the thread belongs to */
struct krunq *ke_runq; /* Assiociated runqueue */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
int ke_cpu; /* CPU that we have affinity for. */
int ke_wakeup_cpu; /* CPU that has activated us. */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#endif
int ke_activated; /* How is the thread activated. */
uint64_t ke_timestamp; /* Last timestamp dependent on state.*/
unsigned ke_lastran; /* Last timestamp the thread ran. */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/* The following variables are only used for pctcpu calculation */
int ke_ltick; /* Last tick that we were running on */
int ke_ftick; /* First tick that we were running on */
int ke_ticks; /* Tick count */
};
#define td_kse td_sched
#define ke_proc ke_thread->td_proc
#define ke_ksegrp ke_thread->td_ksegrp
/* flags kept in ke_flags */
#define KEF_BOUND 0x0001 /* Thread can not migrate. */
#define KEF_PREEMPTED 0x0002 /* Thread was preempted. */
#define KEF_MIGRATING 0x0004 /* Thread is migrating. */
#define KEF_SLEEP 0x0008 /* Thread did sleep. */
#define KEF_DIDRUN 0x0010 /* Thread actually ran. */
#define KEF_EXIT 0x0020 /* Thread is being killed. */
#define KEF_NEXTRQ 0x0400 /* Thread should be in next queue. */
#define KEF_FIRST_SLICE 0x0800 /* Thread has first time slice left. */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
struct kg_sched {
struct thread *skg_last_assigned; /* (j) Last thread assigned to */
/* the system scheduler */
u_long skg_slptime; /* (j) Number of ticks we vol. slept */
u_long skg_runtime; /* (j) Temp total run time. */
int skg_avail_opennings; /* (j) Num unfilled slots in group.*/
int skg_concurrency; /* (j) Num threads requested in group.*/
};
#define kg_last_assigned kg_sched->skg_last_assigned
#define kg_avail_opennings kg_sched->skg_avail_opennings
#define kg_concurrency kg_sched->skg_concurrency
#define kg_slptime kg_sched->skg_slptime
#define kg_runtime kg_sched->skg_runtime
#define SLOT_RELEASE(kg) (kg)->kg_avail_opennings++
#define SLOT_USE(kg) (kg)->kg_avail_opennings--
/*
* Cpu percentage computation macros and defines.
*
* SCHED_CPU_TIME: Number of seconds to average the cpu usage across.
* SCHED_CPU_TICKS: Number of hz ticks to average the cpu usage across.
*/
#define SCHED_CPU_TIME 10
#define SCHED_CPU_TICKS (hz * SCHED_CPU_TIME)
/*
* kseq - per processor runqs and statistics.
*/
struct kseq {
struct krunq *ksq_curr; /* Current queue. */
struct krunq *ksq_next; /* Next timeshare queue. */
struct krunq ksq_timeshare[2]; /* Run queues for !IDLE. */
struct krunq ksq_idle; /* Queue of IDLE threads. */
int ksq_load;
uint64_t ksq_last_timestamp; /* Per-cpu last clock tick */
unsigned ksq_expired_tick; /* First expired tick */
signed char ksq_expired_nice; /* Lowest nice in nextq */
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
};
static struct kse kse0;
static struct kg_sched kg_sched0;
static int min_timeslice = 5;
static int def_timeslice = 100;
static int granularity = 10;
static int realstathz;
static int sched_tdcnt;
static struct kseq kseq_global;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/*
* One kse queue per processor.
*/
#ifdef SMP
static struct kseq kseq_cpu[MAXCPU];
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#define KSEQ_SELF() (&kseq_cpu[PCPU_GET(cpuid)])
#define KSEQ_CPU(x) (&kseq_cpu[(x)])
#define KSEQ_ID(x) ((x) - kseq_cpu)
static cpumask_t cpu_sibling[MAXCPU];
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#else /* !SMP */
#define KSEQ_SELF() (&kseq_global)
#define KSEQ_CPU(x) (&kseq_global)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#endif
/* decay 95% of `p_pctcpu' in 60 seconds; see CCPU_SHIFT before changing */
static fixpt_t ccpu = 0.95122942450071400909 * FSCALE; /* exp(-1/20) */
SYSCTL_INT(_kern, OID_AUTO, ccpu, CTLFLAG_RD, &ccpu, 0, "");
static void sched_setup(void *dummy);
SYSINIT(sched_setup, SI_SUB_RUN_QUEUE, SI_ORDER_FIRST, sched_setup, NULL);
static void sched_initticks(void *dummy);
SYSINIT(sched_initticks, SI_SUB_CLOCKS, SI_ORDER_THIRD, sched_initticks, NULL)
static SYSCTL_NODE(_kern, OID_AUTO, sched, CTLFLAG_RW, 0, "Scheduler");
SYSCTL_STRING(_kern_sched, OID_AUTO, name, CTLFLAG_RD, "CORE", 0,
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
"Scheduler name");
#ifdef SMP
/* Enable forwarding of wakeups to all other cpus */
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern_sched, OID_AUTO, ipiwakeup, CTLFLAG_RD, NULL, "Kernel SMP");
static int runq_fuzz = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched, OID_AUTO, runq_fuzz, CTLFLAG_RW, &runq_fuzz, 0, "");
static int forward_wakeup_enabled = 1;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, enabled, CTLFLAG_RW,
&forward_wakeup_enabled, 0,
"Forwarding of wakeup to idle CPUs");
static int forward_wakeups_requested = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, requested, CTLFLAG_RD,
&forward_wakeups_requested, 0,
"Requests for Forwarding of wakeup to idle CPUs");
static int forward_wakeups_delivered = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, delivered, CTLFLAG_RD,
&forward_wakeups_delivered, 0,
"Completed Forwarding of wakeup to idle CPUs");
static int forward_wakeup_use_mask = 1;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, usemask, CTLFLAG_RW,
&forward_wakeup_use_mask, 0,
"Use the mask of idle cpus");
static int forward_wakeup_use_loop = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, useloop, CTLFLAG_RW,
&forward_wakeup_use_loop, 0,
"Use a loop to find idle cpus");
static int forward_wakeup_use_single = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, onecpu, CTLFLAG_RW,
&forward_wakeup_use_single, 0,
"Only signal one idle cpu");
static int forward_wakeup_use_htt = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_sched_ipiwakeup, OID_AUTO, htt2, CTLFLAG_RW,
&forward_wakeup_use_htt, 0,
"account for htt");
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#endif
static void slot_fill(struct ksegrp *);
static void krunq_add(struct krunq *, struct kse *);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
static struct kse *krunq_choose(struct krunq *);
static void krunq_clrbit(struct krunq *rq, int pri);
static int krunq_findbit(struct krunq *rq);
static void krunq_init(struct krunq *);
static void krunq_remove(struct krunq *, struct kse *);
static struct kse * kseq_choose(struct kseq *);
static void kseq_load_add(struct kseq *, struct kse *);
static void kseq_load_rem(struct kseq *, struct kse *);
static void kseq_runq_add(struct kseq *, struct kse *);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
static void kseq_runq_rem(struct kseq *, struct kse *);
static void kseq_setup(struct kseq *);
static int sched_is_timeshare(struct ksegrp *kg);
static struct kse *sched_choose(void);
static int sched_calc_pri(struct ksegrp *kg);
static int sched_starving(struct kseq *, unsigned, struct kse *);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
static void sched_pctcpu_update(struct kse *);
static void sched_thread_priority(struct thread *, u_char);
static uint64_t sched_timestamp(void);
static int sched_recalc_pri(struct kse *ke, uint64_t now);
static int sched_timeslice(struct kse *ke);
static void sched_update_runtime(struct kse *ke, uint64_t now);
static void sched_commit_runtime(struct kse *ke);
/*
* Initialize a run structure.
*/
static void
krunq_init(struct krunq *rq)
{
int i;
bzero(rq, sizeof *rq);
for (i = 0; i < KQ_NQS; i++)
TAILQ_INIT(&rq->rq_queues[i]);
}
/*
* Clear the status bit of the queue corresponding to priority level pri,
* indicating that it is empty.
*/
static inline void
krunq_clrbit(struct krunq *rq, int pri)
{
struct krqbits *rqb;
rqb = &rq->rq_status;
rqb->rqb_bits[KQB_WORD(pri)] &= ~KQB_BIT(pri);
}
/*
* Find the index of the first non-empty run queue. This is done by
* scanning the status bits, a set bit indicates a non-empty queue.
*/
static int
krunq_findbit(struct krunq *rq)
{
struct krqbits *rqb;
int pri;
int i;
rqb = &rq->rq_status;
for (i = 0; i < KQB_LEN; i++) {
if (rqb->rqb_bits[i]) {
pri = KQB_FFS(rqb->rqb_bits[i]) + (i << KQB_L2BPW);
return (pri);
}
}
return (-1);
}
static int
krunq_check(struct krunq *rq)
{
struct krqbits *rqb;
int i;
rqb = &rq->rq_status;
for (i = 0; i < KQB_LEN; i++) {
if (rqb->rqb_bits[i])
return (1);
}
return (0);
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/*
* Set the status bit of the queue corresponding to priority level pri,
* indicating that it is non-empty.
*/
static inline void
krunq_setbit(struct krunq *rq, int pri)
{
struct krqbits *rqb;
rqb = &rq->rq_status;
rqb->rqb_bits[KQB_WORD(pri)] |= KQB_BIT(pri);
}
/*
* Add the KSE to the queue specified by its priority, and set the
* corresponding status bit.
*/
static void
krunq_add(struct krunq *rq, struct kse *ke)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
{
struct krqhead *rqh;
int pri;
pri = ke->ke_thread->td_priority;
ke->ke_rqindex = pri;
krunq_setbit(rq, pri);
rqh = &rq->rq_queues[pri];
if (ke->ke_flags & KEF_PREEMPTED)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
TAILQ_INSERT_HEAD(rqh, ke, ke_procq);
else
TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(rqh, ke, ke_procq);
}
/*
* Find the highest priority process on the run queue.
*/
static struct kse *
krunq_choose(struct krunq *rq)
{
struct krqhead *rqh;
struct kse *ke;
int pri;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
if ((pri = krunq_findbit(rq)) != -1) {
rqh = &rq->rq_queues[pri];
ke = TAILQ_FIRST(rqh);
KASSERT(ke != NULL, ("krunq_choose: no thread on busy queue"));
#ifdef SMP
if (pri <= PRI_MAX_ITHD || runq_fuzz <= 0)
return (ke);
/*
* In the first couple of entries, check if
* there is one for our CPU as a preference.
*/
struct kse *ke2 = ke;
const int mycpu = PCPU_GET(cpuid);
const int mymask = 1 << mycpu;
int count = runq_fuzz;
while (count-- && ke2) {
const int cpu = ke2->ke_wakeup_cpu;
if (cpu_sibling[cpu] & mymask) {
ke = ke2;
break;
}
ke2 = TAILQ_NEXT(ke2, ke_procq);
}
#endif
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
return (ke);
}
return (NULL);
}
/*
* Remove the KSE from the queue specified by its priority, and clear the
* corresponding status bit if the queue becomes empty.
* Caller must set ke->ke_state afterwards.
*/
static void
krunq_remove(struct krunq *rq, struct kse *ke)
{
struct krqhead *rqh;
int pri;
KASSERT(ke->ke_proc->p_sflag & PS_INMEM,
("runq_remove: process swapped out"));
pri = ke->ke_rqindex;
rqh = &rq->rq_queues[pri];
KASSERT(ke != NULL, ("krunq_remove: no proc on busy queue"));
TAILQ_REMOVE(rqh, ke, ke_procq);
if (TAILQ_EMPTY(rqh))
krunq_clrbit(rq, pri);
}
static inline void
kseq_runq_add(struct kseq *kseq, struct kse *ke)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
{
krunq_add(ke->ke_runq, ke);
ke->ke_kseq = kseq;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static inline void
kseq_runq_rem(struct kseq *kseq, struct kse *ke)
{
krunq_remove(ke->ke_runq, ke);
ke->ke_kseq = NULL;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke->ke_runq = NULL;
}
static inline void
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
kseq_load_add(struct kseq *kseq, struct kse *ke)
{
kseq->ksq_load++;
if ((ke->ke_proc->p_flag & P_NOLOAD) == 0)
sched_tdcnt++;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static inline void
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
kseq_load_rem(struct kseq *kseq, struct kse *ke)
{
kseq->ksq_load--;
if ((ke->ke_proc->p_flag & P_NOLOAD) == 0)
sched_tdcnt--;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
/*
* Pick the highest priority task we have and return it.
*/
static struct kse *
kseq_choose(struct kseq *kseq)
{
struct krunq *swap;
struct kse *ke;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = krunq_choose(kseq->ksq_curr);
if (ke != NULL)
return (ke);
kseq->ksq_expired_nice = PRIO_MAX + 1;
kseq->ksq_expired_tick = 0;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
swap = kseq->ksq_curr;
kseq->ksq_curr = kseq->ksq_next;
kseq->ksq_next = swap;
ke = krunq_choose(kseq->ksq_curr);
if (ke != NULL)
return (ke);
return krunq_choose(&kseq->ksq_idle);
}
static inline uint64_t
sched_timestamp(void)
{
uint64_t now = cputick2usec(cpu_ticks()) * 1000;
return (now);
}
static inline int
sched_timeslice(struct kse *ke)
{
struct proc *p = ke->ke_proc;
if (ke->ke_proc->p_nice < 0)
return SCALE_USER_PRI(def_timeslice*4, PROC_USER_PRI(p));
else
return SCALE_USER_PRI(def_timeslice, PROC_USER_PRI(p));
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static inline int
sched_is_timeshare(struct ksegrp *kg)
{
2006-06-13 23:45:59 +00:00
return (kg->kg_pri_class == PRI_TIMESHARE);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static int
sched_calc_pri(struct ksegrp *kg)
{
int score, pri;
if (sched_is_timeshare(kg)) {
score = CURRENT_SCORE(kg) - MAX_SCORE / 2;
pri = PROC_PRI(kg->kg_proc) - score;
if (pri < PUSER)
pri = PUSER;
else if (pri > PUSER_MAX)
pri = PUSER_MAX;
return (pri);
}
return (kg->kg_user_pri);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static int
sched_recalc_pri(struct kse *ke, uint64_t now)
{
uint64_t delta;
unsigned int sleep_time;
struct ksegrp *kg;
kg = ke->ke_ksegrp;
delta = now - ke->ke_timestamp;
if (__predict_false(!sched_is_timeshare(kg)))
return (kg->kg_user_pri);
if (delta > NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME)
sleep_time = NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME;
else
sleep_time = (unsigned int)delta;
if (__predict_false(sleep_time == 0))
goto out;
if (ke->ke_activated != -1 &&
sleep_time > INTERACTIVE_SLEEP_TIME(ke)) {
kg->kg_slptime = HZ_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_TIME - def_timeslice);
} else {
sleep_time *= (MAX_SCORE - CURRENT_SCORE(kg)) ? : 1;
/*
* If thread is waking from uninterruptible sleep, it is
* unlikely an interactive sleep, limit its sleep time to
* prevent it from being an interactive thread.
*/
if (ke->ke_activated == -1) {
if (kg->kg_slptime >= INTERACTIVE_SLEEP_TIME(ke))
sleep_time = 0;
else if (kg->kg_slptime + sleep_time >=
INTERACTIVE_SLEEP_TIME(ke)) {
kg->kg_slptime = INTERACTIVE_SLEEP_TIME(ke);
sleep_time = 0;
}
}
/*
* Thread gets priority boost here.
*/
kg->kg_slptime += sleep_time;
/* Sleep time should never be larger than maximum */
if (kg->kg_slptime > NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME)
kg->kg_slptime = NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME;
}
out:
return (sched_calc_pri(kg));
}
static void
sched_update_runtime(struct kse *ke, uint64_t now)
{
uint64_t runtime;
struct ksegrp *kg = ke->ke_ksegrp;
if (sched_is_timeshare(kg)) {
if ((int64_t)(now - ke->ke_timestamp) < NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME) {
runtime = now - ke->ke_timestamp;
if ((int64_t)(now - ke->ke_timestamp) < 0)
runtime = 0;
} else {
runtime = NS_MAX_SLEEP_TIME;
}
runtime /= (CURRENT_SCORE(kg) ? : 1);
kg->kg_runtime += runtime;
ke->ke_timestamp = now;
}
}
static void
sched_commit_runtime(struct kse *ke)
{
struct ksegrp *kg = ke->ke_ksegrp;
if (kg->kg_runtime > kg->kg_slptime)
kg->kg_slptime = 0;
else
kg->kg_slptime -= kg->kg_runtime;
kg->kg_runtime = 0;
}
static void
kseq_setup(struct kseq *kseq)
{
krunq_init(&kseq->ksq_timeshare[0]);
krunq_init(&kseq->ksq_timeshare[1]);
krunq_init(&kseq->ksq_idle);
kseq->ksq_curr = &kseq->ksq_timeshare[0];
kseq->ksq_next = &kseq->ksq_timeshare[1];
kseq->ksq_expired_nice = PRIO_MAX + 1;
kseq->ksq_expired_tick = 0;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
static void
sched_setup(void *dummy)
{
#ifdef SMP
int i;
#endif
/*
* To avoid divide-by-zero, we set realstathz a dummy value
* in case which sched_clock() called before sched_initticks().
*/
realstathz = hz;
min_timeslice = MAX(5 * hz / 1000, 1);
def_timeslice = MAX(100 * hz / 1000, 1);
granularity = MAX(10 * hz / 1000, 1);
kseq_setup(&kseq_global);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
runq_fuzz = MIN(mp_ncpus * 2, 8);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/*
* Initialize the kseqs.
*/
for (i = 0; i < MAXCPU; i++) {
struct kseq *ksq;
ksq = &kseq_cpu[i];
kseq_setup(&kseq_cpu[i]);
cpu_sibling[i] = 1 << i;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
if (smp_topology != NULL) {
int i, j;
cpumask_t visited;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
struct cpu_group *cg;
visited = 0;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
for (i = 0; i < smp_topology->ct_count; i++) {
cg = &smp_topology->ct_group[i];
if (cg->cg_mask & visited)
panic("duplicated cpumask in ct_group.");
if (cg->cg_mask == 0)
continue;
visited |= cg->cg_mask;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
for (j = 0; j < MAXCPU; j++) {
if ((cg->cg_mask & (1 << j)) != 0)
cpu_sibling[j] |= cg->cg_mask;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
}
}
#endif
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
kseq_load_add(KSEQ_SELF(), &kse0);
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
}
/* ARGSUSED */
static void
sched_initticks(void *dummy)
{
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
realstathz = stathz ? stathz : hz;
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
}
/*
* Very early in the boot some setup of scheduler-specific
* parts of proc0 and of soem scheduler resources needs to be done.
* Called from:
* proc0_init()
*/
void
schedinit(void)
{
/*
* Set up the scheduler specific parts of proc0.
*/
proc0.p_sched = NULL; /* XXX */
ksegrp0.kg_sched = &kg_sched0;
thread0.td_sched = &kse0;
kse0.ke_thread = &thread0;
kse0.ke_state = KES_THREAD;
kse0.ke_slice = 100;
kg_sched0.skg_concurrency = 1;
kg_sched0.skg_avail_opennings = 0; /* we are already running */
}
/*
* This is only somewhat accurate since given many processes of the same
* priority they will switch when their slices run out, which will be
* at most SCHED_SLICE_MAX.
*/
int
sched_rr_interval(void)
{
return (def_timeslice);
}
static void
sched_pctcpu_update(struct kse *ke)
{
/*
* Adjust counters and watermark for pctcpu calc.
*/
if (ke->ke_ltick > ticks - SCHED_CPU_TICKS) {
/*
* Shift the tick count out so that the divide doesn't
* round away our results.
*/
ke->ke_ticks <<= 10;
ke->ke_ticks = (ke->ke_ticks / (ticks - ke->ke_ftick)) *
SCHED_CPU_TICKS;
ke->ke_ticks >>= 10;
} else
ke->ke_ticks = 0;
ke->ke_ltick = ticks;
ke->ke_ftick = ke->ke_ltick - SCHED_CPU_TICKS;
}
static void
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
sched_thread_priority(struct thread *td, u_char prio)
{
struct kse *ke;
ke = td->td_kse;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
if (__predict_false(td->td_priority == prio))
return;
if (TD_ON_RUNQ(td)) {
/*
* If the priority has been elevated due to priority
* propagation, we may have to move ourselves to a new
* queue. We still call adjustrunqueue below in case kse
* needs to fix things up.
*/
if (prio < td->td_priority && ke->ke_runq != NULL &&
ke->ke_runq != ke->ke_kseq->ksq_curr) {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
krunq_remove(ke->ke_runq, ke);
ke->ke_runq = ke->ke_kseq->ksq_curr;
krunq_add(ke->ke_runq, ke);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
adjustrunqueue(td, prio);
} else
td->td_priority = prio;
}
/*
* Update a thread's priority when it is lent another thread's
* priority.
*/
void
sched_lend_prio(struct thread *td, u_char prio)
{
td->td_flags |= TDF_BORROWING;
sched_thread_priority(td, prio);
}
/*
* Restore a thread's priority when priority propagation is
* over. The prio argument is the minimum priority the thread
* needs to have to satisfy other possible priority lending
* requests. If the thread's regular priority is less
* important than prio, the thread will keep a priority boost
* of prio.
*/
void
sched_unlend_prio(struct thread *td, u_char prio)
{
u_char base_pri;
if (td->td_base_pri >= PRI_MIN_TIMESHARE &&
td->td_base_pri <= PRI_MAX_TIMESHARE)
base_pri = td->td_ksegrp->kg_user_pri;
else
base_pri = td->td_base_pri;
if (prio >= base_pri) {
td->td_flags &= ~TDF_BORROWING;
sched_thread_priority(td, base_pri);
} else
sched_lend_prio(td, prio);
}
void
sched_prio(struct thread *td, u_char prio)
{
u_char oldprio;
if (td->td_ksegrp->kg_pri_class == PRI_TIMESHARE)
prio = MIN(prio, PUSER_MAX);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/* First, update the base priority. */
td->td_base_pri = prio;
/*
* If the thread is borrowing another thread's priority, don't
* ever lower the priority.
*/
if (td->td_flags & TDF_BORROWING && td->td_priority < prio)
return;
/* Change the real priority. */
oldprio = td->td_priority;
sched_thread_priority(td, prio);
/*
* If the thread is on a turnstile, then let the turnstile update
* its state.
*/
if (TD_ON_LOCK(td) && oldprio != prio)
turnstile_adjust(td, oldprio);
}
void
sched_switch(struct thread *td, struct thread *newtd, int flags)
{
struct kseq *ksq;
struct kse *ke;
struct ksegrp *kg;
uint64_t now;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
now = sched_timestamp();
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke = td->td_kse;
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
ksq = KSEQ_SELF();
td->td_lastcpu = td->td_oncpu;
td->td_oncpu = NOCPU;
td->td_flags &= ~TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
td->td_owepreempt = 0;
if (td == PCPU_GET(idlethread)) {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
TD_SET_CAN_RUN(td);
} else {
sched_update_runtime(ke, now);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/* We are ending our run so make our slot available again */
SLOT_RELEASE(td->td_ksegrp);
kseq_load_rem(ksq, ke);
if (TD_IS_RUNNING(td)) {
setrunqueue(td, (flags & SW_PREEMPT) ?
SRQ_OURSELF|SRQ_YIELDING|SRQ_PREEMPTED :
SRQ_OURSELF|SRQ_YIELDING);
} else {
if ((td->td_proc->p_flag & P_HADTHREADS) &&
(newtd == NULL ||
newtd->td_ksegrp != td->td_ksegrp)) {
/*
* We will not be on the run queue.
* So we must be sleeping or similar.
* Don't use the slot if we will need it
* for newtd.
*/
slot_fill(td->td_ksegrp);
}
ke->ke_flags &= ~KEF_NEXTRQ;
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
if (newtd != NULL) {
/*
* If we bring in a thread account for it as if it had been
* added to the run queue and then chosen.
*/
SLOT_USE(newtd->td_ksegrp);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
newtd->td_kse->ke_flags |= KEF_DIDRUN;
newtd->td_kse->ke_timestamp = now;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
TD_SET_RUNNING(newtd);
kseq_load_add(ksq, newtd->td_kse);
} else {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
newtd = choosethread();
/* sched_choose sets ke_timestamp, just reuse it */
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
if (td != newtd) {
ke->ke_lastran = tick;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef HWPMC_HOOKS
if (PMC_PROC_IS_USING_PMCS(td->td_proc))
PMC_SWITCH_CONTEXT(td, PMC_FN_CSW_OUT);
#endif
cpu_switch(td, newtd);
#ifdef HWPMC_HOOKS
if (PMC_PROC_IS_USING_PMCS(td->td_proc))
PMC_SWITCH_CONTEXT(td, PMC_FN_CSW_IN);
#endif
}
sched_lock.mtx_lock = (uintptr_t)td;
td->td_oncpu = PCPU_GET(cpuid);
}
void
sched_nice(struct proc *p, int nice)
{
struct ksegrp *kg;
struct thread *td;
PROC_LOCK_ASSERT(p, MA_OWNED);
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
p->p_nice = nice;
FOREACH_KSEGRP_IN_PROC(p, kg) {
if (kg->kg_pri_class == PRI_TIMESHARE) {
kg->kg_user_pri = sched_calc_pri(kg);
FOREACH_THREAD_IN_GROUP(kg, td)
td->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
}
}
}
void
sched_sleep(struct thread *td)
{
struct kse *ke;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = td->td_kse;
if (td->td_flags & TDF_SINTR)
ke->ke_activated = 0;
else
ke->ke_activated = -1;
ke->ke_flags |= KEF_SLEEP;
}
void
sched_wakeup(struct thread *td)
{
struct kse *ke;
struct ksegrp *kg;
struct kseq *kseq, *mykseq;
uint64_t now;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = td->td_kse;
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
mykseq = KSEQ_SELF();
if (ke->ke_flags & KEF_SLEEP) {
ke->ke_flags &= ~KEF_SLEEP;
if (sched_is_timeshare(kg)) {
sched_commit_runtime(ke);
now = sched_timestamp();
kseq = KSEQ_CPU(td->td_lastcpu);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
if (kseq != mykseq)
now = now - mykseq->ksq_last_timestamp +
kseq->ksq_last_timestamp;
#endif
kg->kg_user_pri = sched_recalc_pri(ke, now);
}
}
setrunqueue(td, SRQ_BORING);
}
/*
* Penalize the parent for creating a new child and initialize the child's
* priority.
*/
void
sched_fork(struct thread *td, struct thread *childtd)
{
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
sched_fork_ksegrp(td, childtd->td_ksegrp);
sched_fork_thread(td, childtd);
}
void
sched_fork_ksegrp(struct thread *td, struct ksegrp *child)
{
struct ksegrp *kg = td->td_ksegrp;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
child->kg_slptime = kg->kg_slptime * CHILD_WEIGHT / 100;
if (child->kg_pri_class == PRI_TIMESHARE)
child->kg_user_pri = sched_calc_pri(child);
kg->kg_slptime = kg->kg_slptime * PARENT_WEIGHT / 100;
}
void
sched_fork_thread(struct thread *td, struct thread *child)
{
struct kse *ke;
struct kse *ke2;
sched_newthread(child);
ke = td->td_kse;
ke2 = child->td_kse;
ke2->ke_slice = (ke->ke_slice + 1) >> 1;
ke2->ke_flags |= KEF_FIRST_SLICE | (ke->ke_flags & KEF_NEXTRQ);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke2->ke_activated = 0;
ke->ke_slice >>= 1;
if (ke->ke_slice == 0) {
ke->ke_slice = 1;
sched_tick();
}
/* Grab our parents cpu estimation information. */
ke2->ke_ticks = ke->ke_ticks;
ke2->ke_ltick = ke->ke_ltick;
ke2->ke_ftick = ke->ke_ftick;
}
void
sched_class(struct ksegrp *kg, int class)
{
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
kg->kg_pri_class = class;
}
/*
* Return some of the child's priority and interactivity to the parent.
*/
void
sched_exit(struct proc *p, struct thread *childtd)
{
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
sched_exit_thread(FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p), childtd);
sched_exit_ksegrp(FIRST_KSEGRP_IN_PROC(p), childtd);
}
void
sched_exit_ksegrp(struct ksegrp *parentkg, struct thread *td)
{
if (td->td_ksegrp->kg_slptime < parentkg->kg_slptime) {
parentkg->kg_slptime = parentkg->kg_slptime /
(EXIT_WEIGHT) * (EXIT_WEIGHT - 1) +
td->td_ksegrp->kg_slptime / EXIT_WEIGHT;
}
}
void
sched_exit_thread(struct thread *td, struct thread *childtd)
{
struct kse *childke = childtd->td_kse;
struct kse *parentke = td->td_kse;
kseq_load_rem(KSEQ_SELF(), childke);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
sched_update_runtime(childke, sched_timestamp());
sched_commit_runtime(childke);
if ((childke->ke_flags & KEF_FIRST_SLICE) &&
td->td_proc == childtd->td_proc->p_pptr) {
parentke->ke_slice += childke->ke_slice;
if (parentke->ke_slice > sched_timeslice(parentke))
parentke->ke_slice = sched_timeslice(parentke);
}
}
static int
sched_starving(struct kseq *ksq, unsigned now, struct kse *ke)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
{
uint64_t delta;
if (ke->ke_proc->p_nice > ksq->ksq_expired_nice)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
return (1);
if (ksq->ksq_expired_tick == 0)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
return (0);
delta = HZ_TO_NS((uint64_t)now - ksq->ksq_expired_tick);
if (delta > STARVATION_TIME * ksq->ksq_load)
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
return (1);
return (0);
}
/*
* An interactive thread has smaller time slice granularity,
* a cpu hog can have larger granularity.
*/
static inline int
sched_timeslice_split(struct kse *ke)
{
int score, g;
score = (int)(MAX_SCORE - CURRENT_SCORE(ke->ke_ksegrp));
if (score == 0)
score = 1;
#ifdef SMP
g = granularity * ((1 << score) - 1) * smp_cpus;
#else
g = granularity * ((1 << score) - 1);
#endif
return (ke->ke_slice >= g && ke->ke_slice % g == 0);
}
void
sched_tick(void)
{
struct thread *td;
struct proc *p;
struct kse *ke;
struct ksegrp *kg;
struct kseq *kseq;
uint64_t now;
int cpuid;
int class;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
td = curthread;
ke = td->td_kse;
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
p = td->td_proc;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
class = PRI_BASE(kg->kg_pri_class);
now = sched_timestamp();
cpuid = PCPU_GET(cpuid);
kseq = KSEQ_CPU(cpuid);
kseq->ksq_last_timestamp = now;
if (class == PRI_IDLE) {
/*
* Processes of equal idle priority are run round-robin.
*/
if (td != PCPU_GET(idlethread) && --ke->ke_slice <= 0) {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke->ke_slice = def_timeslice;
td->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
}
return;
}
if (class == PRI_REALTIME) {
/*
* Realtime scheduling, do round robin for RR class, FIFO
* is not affected.
*/
if (PRI_NEED_RR(kg->kg_pri_class) && --ke->ke_slice <= 0) {
ke->ke_slice = def_timeslice;
td->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
return;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
/*
* We skip kernel thread, though it may be classified as TIMESHARE.
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
*/
if (class != PRI_TIMESHARE || (p->p_flag & P_KTHREAD) != 0)
return;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
if (--ke->ke_slice <= 0) {
td->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
sched_update_runtime(ke, now);
sched_commit_runtime(ke);
kg->kg_user_pri = sched_calc_pri(kg);
ke->ke_slice = sched_timeslice(ke);
ke->ke_flags &= ~KEF_FIRST_SLICE;
if (ke->ke_flags & KEF_BOUND || td->td_pinned) {
if (kseq->ksq_expired_tick == 0)
kseq->ksq_expired_tick = tick;
} else {
if (kseq_global.ksq_expired_tick == 0)
kseq_global.ksq_expired_tick = tick;
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
if (!THREAD_IS_INTERACTIVE(ke) ||
sched_starving(kseq, tick, ke) ||
sched_starving(&kseq_global, tick, ke)) {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
/* The thead becomes cpu hog, schedule it off. */
ke->ke_flags |= KEF_NEXTRQ;
if (ke->ke_flags & KEF_BOUND || td->td_pinned) {
if (p->p_nice < kseq->ksq_expired_nice)
kseq->ksq_expired_nice = p->p_nice;
} else {
if (p->p_nice < kseq_global.ksq_expired_nice)
kseq_global.ksq_expired_nice =
p->p_nice;
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
} else {
/*
* Don't allow an interactive thread which has long timeslice
* to monopolize CPU, split the long timeslice into small
* chunks. This essentially does round-robin between
* interactive threads.
*/
if (THREAD_IS_INTERACTIVE(ke) && sched_timeslice_split(ke))
td->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
}
void
sched_clock(struct thread *td)
{
struct ksegrp *kg;
struct kse *ke;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = td->td_kse;
kg = ke->ke_ksegrp;
/* Adjust ticks for pctcpu */
ke->ke_ticks++;
ke->ke_ltick = ticks;
/* Go up to one second beyond our max and then trim back down */
if (ke->ke_ftick + SCHED_CPU_TICKS + hz < ke->ke_ltick)
sched_pctcpu_update(ke);
}
static int
kseq_runnable(struct kseq *kseq)
{
return (krunq_check(kseq->ksq_curr) ||
krunq_check(kseq->ksq_next) ||
krunq_check(&kseq->ksq_idle));
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
int
sched_runnable(void)
{
#ifdef SMP
return (kseq_runnable(&kseq_global) || kseq_runnable(KSEQ_SELF()));
#else
return (kseq_runnable(&kseq_global));
#endif
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
void
sched_userret(struct thread *td)
{
struct ksegrp *kg;
KASSERT((td->td_flags & TDF_BORROWING) == 0,
("thread with borrowed priority returning to userland"));
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
if (td->td_priority != kg->kg_user_pri) {
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
td->td_priority = kg->kg_user_pri;
td->td_base_pri = kg->kg_user_pri;
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
}
}
struct kse *
sched_choose(void)
{
struct kse *ke;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
struct kseq *kseq;
#ifdef SMP
struct kse *kecpu;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
kseq = &kseq_global;
ke = kseq_choose(&kseq_global);
kecpu = kseq_choose(KSEQ_SELF());
if (ke == NULL ||
(kecpu != NULL &&
kecpu->ke_thread->td_priority < ke->ke_thread->td_priority)) {
ke = kecpu;
kseq = KSEQ_SELF();
}
#else
kseq = &kseq_global;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke = kseq_choose(kseq);
#endif
if (ke != NULL) {
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
kseq_runq_rem(kseq, ke);
ke->ke_state = KES_THREAD;
ke->ke_flags &= ~KEF_PREEMPTED;
ke->ke_timestamp = sched_timestamp();
}
return (ke);
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
static int
forward_wakeup(int cpunum, cpumask_t me)
{
cpumask_t map, dontuse;
cpumask_t map2;
struct pcpu *pc;
cpumask_t id, map3;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
CTR0(KTR_RUNQ, "forward_wakeup()");
if ((!forward_wakeup_enabled) ||
(forward_wakeup_use_mask == 0 && forward_wakeup_use_loop == 0))
return (0);
if (!smp_started || cold || panicstr)
return (0);
forward_wakeups_requested++;
/*
* check the idle mask we received against what we calculated before
* in the old version.
*/
/*
* don't bother if we should be doing it ourself..
*/
if ((me & idle_cpus_mask) && (cpunum == NOCPU || me == (1 << cpunum)))
return (0);
dontuse = me | stopped_cpus | hlt_cpus_mask;
map3 = 0;
if (forward_wakeup_use_loop) {
SLIST_FOREACH(pc, &cpuhead, pc_allcpu) {
id = pc->pc_cpumask;
if ( (id & dontuse) == 0 &&
pc->pc_curthread == pc->pc_idlethread) {
map3 |= id;
}
}
}
if (forward_wakeup_use_mask) {
map = 0;
map = idle_cpus_mask & ~dontuse;
/* If they are both on, compare and use loop if different */
if (forward_wakeup_use_loop) {
if (map != map3) {
printf("map (%02X) != map3 (%02X)\n",
map, map3);
map = map3;
}
}
} else {
map = map3;
}
/* If we only allow a specific CPU, then mask off all the others */
if (cpunum != NOCPU) {
KASSERT((cpunum <= mp_maxcpus),("forward_wakeup: bad cpunum."));
map &= (1 << cpunum);
} else {
/* Try choose an idle die. */
if (forward_wakeup_use_htt) {
map2 = (map & (map >> 1)) & 0x5555;
if (map2) {
map = map2;
}
}
/* set only one bit */
if (forward_wakeup_use_single) {
map = map & ((~map) + 1);
}
}
if (map) {
forward_wakeups_delivered++;
ipi_selected(map, IPI_AST);
return (1);
}
return (0);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
#endif
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
void
sched_add(struct thread *td, int flags)
{
struct kseq *ksq;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
struct ksegrp *kg;
struct kse *ke;
struct thread *mytd;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
int class;
int nextrq;
int need_resched = 0;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
int cpu;
int mycpu;
int pinned;
struct kseq *myksq;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#endif
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
mytd = curthread;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke = td->td_kse;
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
KASSERT(ke->ke_state != KES_ONRUNQ,
("sched_add: kse %p (%s) already in run queue", ke,
ke->ke_proc->p_comm));
KASSERT(ke->ke_proc->p_sflag & PS_INMEM,
("sched_add: process swapped out"));
KASSERT(ke->ke_runq == NULL,
("sched_add: KSE %p is still assigned to a run queue", ke));
class = PRI_BASE(kg->kg_pri_class);
#ifdef SMP
mycpu = PCPU_GET(cpuid);
myksq = KSEQ_CPU(mycpu);
ke->ke_wakeup_cpu = mycpu;
#endif
nextrq = (ke->ke_flags & KEF_NEXTRQ);
ke->ke_flags &= ~KEF_NEXTRQ;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
if (flags & SRQ_PREEMPTED)
ke->ke_flags |= KEF_PREEMPTED;
ksq = &kseq_global;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
if (td->td_pinned != 0) {
cpu = td->td_lastcpu;
ksq = KSEQ_CPU(cpu);
pinned = 1;
} else if ((ke)->ke_flags & KEF_BOUND) {
cpu = ke->ke_cpu;
ksq = KSEQ_CPU(cpu);
pinned = 1;
} else {
pinned = 0;
cpu = NOCPU;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
#endif
switch (class) {
case PRI_ITHD:
case PRI_REALTIME:
ke->ke_runq = ksq->ksq_curr;
break;
case PRI_TIMESHARE:
if ((td->td_flags & TDF_BORROWING) == 0 && nextrq)
ke->ke_runq = ksq->ksq_next;
else
ke->ke_runq = ksq->ksq_curr;
break;
case PRI_IDLE:
/*
* This is for priority prop.
*/
if (td->td_priority < PRI_MIN_IDLE)
ke->ke_runq = ksq->ksq_curr;
else
ke->ke_runq = &ksq->ksq_idle;
break;
default:
panic("Unknown pri class.");
break;
}
#ifdef SMP
if ((ke->ke_runq == kseq_global.ksq_curr ||
ke->ke_runq == myksq->ksq_curr) &&
td->td_priority < mytd->td_priority) {
#else
if (ke->ke_runq == kseq_global.ksq_curr &&
td->td_priority < mytd->td_priority) {
#endif
struct krunq *rq;
rq = ke->ke_runq;
ke->ke_runq = NULL;
if ((flags & SRQ_YIELDING) == 0 && maybe_preempt(td))
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
return;
ke->ke_runq = rq;
need_resched = TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
SLOT_USE(kg);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke->ke_state = KES_ONRUNQ;
kseq_runq_add(ksq, ke);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
kseq_load_add(ksq, ke);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#ifdef SMP
if (pinned) {
if (cpu != mycpu) {
struct thread *running = pcpu_find(cpu)->pc_curthread;
if (ksq->ksq_curr == ke->ke_runq &&
running->td_priority < td->td_priority) {
if (td->td_priority <= PRI_MAX_ITHD)
ipi_selected(1 << cpu, IPI_PREEMPT);
else {
running->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED;
ipi_selected(1 << cpu, IPI_AST);
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
} else
curthread->td_flags |= need_resched;
} else {
cpumask_t me = 1 << mycpu;
cpumask_t idle = idle_cpus_mask & me;
int forwarded = 0;
if (!idle && ((flags & SRQ_INTR) == 0) &&
(idle_cpus_mask & ~(hlt_cpus_mask | me)))
forwarded = forward_wakeup(cpu, me);
if (forwarded == 0)
curthread->td_flags |= need_resched;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
#else
mytd->td_flags |= need_resched;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
#endif
}
void
sched_rem(struct thread *td)
{
struct kseq *kseq;
struct kse *ke;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = td->td_kse;
KASSERT((ke->ke_state == KES_ONRUNQ),
("sched_rem: KSE not on run queue"));
kseq = ke->ke_kseq;
SLOT_RELEASE(td->td_ksegrp);
kseq_runq_rem(kseq, ke);
kseq_load_rem(kseq, ke);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
ke->ke_state = KES_THREAD;
}
fixpt_t
sched_pctcpu(struct thread *td)
{
fixpt_t pctcpu;
struct kse *ke;
pctcpu = 0;
ke = td->td_kse;
if (ke == NULL)
return (0);
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
if (ke->ke_ticks) {
int rtick;
/*
* Don't update more frequently than twice a second. Allowing
* this causes the cpu usage to decay away too quickly due to
* rounding errors.
*/
if (ke->ke_ftick + SCHED_CPU_TICKS < ke->ke_ltick ||
ke->ke_ltick < (ticks - (hz / 2)))
sched_pctcpu_update(ke);
/* How many rtick per second ? */
rtick = MIN(ke->ke_ticks / SCHED_CPU_TIME, SCHED_CPU_TICKS);
pctcpu = (FSCALE * ((FSCALE * rtick)/realstathz)) >> FSHIFT;
}
ke->ke_proc->p_swtime = ke->ke_ltick - ke->ke_ftick;
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
return (pctcpu);
}
void
sched_bind(struct thread *td, int cpu)
{
struct kse *ke;
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
ke = td->td_kse;
ke->ke_flags |= KEF_BOUND;
#ifdef SMP
ke->ke_cpu = cpu;
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
if (PCPU_GET(cpuid) == cpu)
return;
mi_switch(SW_VOL, NULL);
#endif
}
void
sched_unbind(struct thread *td)
{
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
td->td_kse->ke_flags &= ~KEF_BOUND;
}
int
sched_is_bound(struct thread *td)
{
mtx_assert(&sched_lock, MA_OWNED);
return (td->td_kse->ke_flags & KEF_BOUND);
}
int
sched_load(void)
{
return (sched_tdcnt);
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
}
void
sched_relinquish(struct thread *td)
{
struct ksegrp *kg;
kg = td->td_ksegrp;
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
if (sched_is_timeshare(kg)) {
sched_prio(td, PRI_MAX_TIMESHARE);
td->td_kse->ke_flags |= KEF_NEXTRQ;
}
mi_switch(SW_VOL, NULL);
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
}
Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Briefly, the scheduler has following characteristic: 1. Timesharing process's nice value is seriously respected, timeslice and interaction detecting algorithm are based on nice value. 2. per-cpu scheduling queue and load balancing. 3. O(1) scheduling. 4. Some cpu affinity code in wakeup path. 5. Support POSIX SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. Unlike scheduler 4BSD and ULE which using fuzzy RQ_PPQ, the scheduler uses 256 priority queues. Unlike ULE which using pull and push, the scheduelr uses pull method, the main reason is to let relative idle cpu do the work, but current the whole scheduler is protected by the big sched_lock, so the benefit is not visible, it really can be worse than nothing because all other cpu are locked out when we are doing balancing work, which the 4BSD scheduelr does not have this problem. The scheduler does not support hyperthreading very well, in fact, the scheduler does not make the difference between physical CPU and logical CPU, this should be improved in feature. The scheduler has priority inversion problem on MP machine, it is not good for realtime scheduling, it can cause realtime process starving. As a result, it seems the MySQL super-smack runs better on my Pentium-D machine when using libthr, despite on UP or SMP kernel.
2006-06-13 13:12:56 +00:00
int
sched_sizeof_ksegrp(void)
{
return (sizeof(struct ksegrp) + sizeof(struct kg_sched));
}
int
sched_sizeof_proc(void)
{
return (sizeof(struct proc));
}
int
sched_sizeof_thread(void)
{
return (sizeof(struct thread) + sizeof(struct td_sched));
}
#define KERN_SWITCH_INCLUDE 1
#include "kern/kern_switch.c"