mirror of
https://github.com/JakeHillion/scx.git
synced 2024-11-26 19:30:24 +00:00
933ea9baa1
Currently, a task's deadline is computed as its vtime + a scaled function of
its average runtime (with its deadline being scaled down if it's more
interactive). This makes sense intuitively, as we do want an interactive task
to have an earlier deadline, but it also has some flaws.
For one thing, we're currently ignoring duty cycle when determining a task's
deadline. This has a few implications. Firstly, because we reward tasks with
higher waker and blocked frequencies due to considering them to be part of a
work chain, we implicitly penalize tasks that rarely ever use the CPU because
those frequencies are low. While those tasks are likely not part of a work
chain, they also should get an interactivity boost just by pure virtue of not
using the CPU very often. This should in theory be addressed by vruntime, but
because we cap the amount of vtime that a task can accumulate to one slice, it
may not be adequately reflected after a task runs for the first time.
Another problem is that we're minimizing a task's deadline if it's interactive,
but we're also not really penalizing a task that's a super CPU hog by
increasing its deadline. We sort of do a bit by applying a higher niceness
which gives it a higher deadline for a lower weight, but its somewhat minimal
considering that we're using niceness, and that the best an interactive task
can do is minimize its deadline to near zero relative to its vtime.
What we really want to do is "negatively" scale an interactive task's deadline
with the same magnitude as we "positively" scale a CPU-hogging task's deadline.
To do this, we make two major changes to how we compute deadline:
1. Instead of using niceness, we now instead use our own straightforward
scaling factor. This was chosen arbitrarily to be a scaling by 1000, but we
can and should improve this in the future.
2. We now create a _signed_ linear latency priority factor as a sum of the
three following inputs:
- Work-chain factor (log_2 of product of blocked freq and waker freq)
- Inverse duty cycle factor (log_2 of the inverse of a task's duty cycle --
higher duty cycle means lower factor)
- Average runtime factor (Higher avg runtime means higher average runtime
factor)
We then compute the latency priority as:
lat_prio := Average runtime factor - (work-chain factor + duty cycle factor)
This gives us a signed value that can be negative. With this, we can compute a
non-negative weight value by calculating a weight from the absolute value of
lat_prio, and use this to scale slice_ns. If lat_prio is negative we calculate
a task's deadline as its vtime MINUS its scaled slice_ns, and if it's positive,
it's the task's vtime PLUS scaled slice_ns.
This ends up working well because you get a higher weight both for highly
interactive tasks, and highly CPU-hogging / non-interactive tasks, which lets
you scale a task's deadline "more negatively" for interactive tasks, and "more
positively" for the CPU hogs.
With this change, we get a significant improvement in FPS. On a 7950X, if I run
the following workload:
$ stress-ng -c $((8 * $(nproc)))
1. I get 60 FPS when playing Stellaris (while time is progressing at max
speed), whereas EEVDF gets 6-7 FPS.
2. I get ~15-40 FPS while playing Civ6, whereas EEVDF seems to get < 1 FPS. The
Civ6 benchmark doesn't even start after over 4 minutes in the initial frame
with EEVDF, but gets us 13s / turn with rusty.
3. It seems that EEVDF has improved with Terraria in v6.9. It was able to
maintain ~30-55 FPS, as opposed to the ~5-10FPS we've seen in the past.
rusty is still able to maintain a solid 60-62FPS consistently with no
problem, however.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| scx_bpfland | ||
| scx_lavd | ||
| scx_layered | ||
| scx_mitosis | ||
| scx_rlfifo | ||
| scx_rustland | ||
| scx_rusty | ||
| meson.build | ||
| README.md | ||
RUST SCHEDULERS
Introduction
This directory contains schedulers with user space rust components.
The README in each scheduler directory provides some background and describes the types of workloads or scenarios they're designed to accommodate. For more details on any of these schedulers, please see the header comment in their main.rs or *.bpf.c files.