Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v1] xen:rtds: towards work conserving RTDS

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey, Meng!

It's really cool to see progress on this... There was quite a bit of
interest in scheduling in general at the Summit in Budapest, and one
important thing for making sure RTDS will be really useful, is for it
to have a work conserving mode! :-)

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 14:13 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
> Make RTDS scheduler work conserving to utilize the idle resource,
> without breaking the real-time guarantees.

Just kill the "to utilize the idle resource". We can expect that people
 that are interested in this commit, also know what 'work conserving'
means. :-)

> VCPU model:
> Each real-time VCPU is extended to have a work conserving flag
> and a priority_level field.
> When a VCPU's budget is depleted in the current period,
> if it has work conserving flag set,
> its priority_level will increase by 1 and its budget will be
> refilled;
> othewrise, the VCPU will be moved to the depletedq.
> 
Mmm... Ok. But is the budget burned, while the vCPU executes at
priority_level 1? If yes, doesn't this mean we risk having less budget
when we get back to priority_lvevel 0?

Oh, wait, maybe it's the case that, when we get back to priority_level
0, we also get another replenishment, is that the case? If yes, I
actually think it's fine...

> diff --git a/xen/common/sched_rt.c b/xen/common/sched_rt.c
> index 39f6bee..740a712 100644
> --- a/xen/common/sched_rt.c
> +++ b/xen/common/sched_rt.c
> @@ -191,6 +195,7 @@ struct rt_vcpu {
>      /* VCPU parameters, in nanoseconds */
>      s_time_t period;
>      s_time_t budget;
> +    bool_t is_work_conserving;   /* is vcpu work conserving */
>  
>      /* VCPU current infomation in nanosecond */
>      s_time_t cur_budget;         /* current budget */
> @@ -201,6 +206,8 @@ struct rt_vcpu {
>      struct rt_dom *sdom;
>      struct vcpu *vcpu;
>  
> +    unsigned priority_level;
> +
>      unsigned flags;              /* mark __RTDS_scheduled, etc.. */
>
So, since we've got a 'flags' field already, can the flag be one of its
bit, instead of adding a new bool in the struct:

/*
 * RTDS_work_conserving: Can the vcpu run in the time that is
 * not part of any real-time reservation, and would therefore
 * be otherwise left idle?
 */
__RTDS_work_conserving       4
#define RTDS_work_conserving (1<<__RTDS_work_conserving)

> @@ -245,6 +252,11 @@ static inline struct list_head *rt_replq(const
> struct scheduler *ops)
>      return &rt_priv(ops)->replq;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool_t is_work_conserving(const struct rt_vcpu *svc)
> +{
>
Use bool.

> @@ -273,6 +285,20 @@ vcpu_on_replq(const struct rt_vcpu *svc)
>      return !list_empty(&svc->replq_elem);
>  }
>  
> +/* If v1 priority >= v2 priority, return value > 0
> + * Otherwise, return value < 0
> + */
>
Comment style.

Apart from that, do you want this to return >0 if v1 should have
priority over v2, and <0 if vice-versa, right? If yes...

> +static int
> +compare_vcpu_priority(const struct rt_vcpu *v1, const struct rt_vcpu
> *v2)
> +{
> +    if ( v1->priority_level < v2->priority_level ||
> +         ( v1->priority_level == v2->priority_level && 
> +             v1->cur_deadline <= v2->cur_deadline ) )
> +            return 1;
> +    else
> +        return -1;
>
  int prio = v2->priority_level - v1->priority_level;

  if ( prio == 0 )
    return v2->cur_deadline - v1->cur_deadline;

  return prio;

Return type has to become s_time_t, and there's a chance that it'll
return 0, if they are at the same level, and have the same absolute
deadline. But I think you can deal with this in the caller.

> @@ -966,8 +1001,16 @@ burn_budget(const struct scheduler *ops, struct
> rt_vcpu *svc, s_time_t now)
>  
>      if ( svc->cur_budget <= 0 )
>      {
> -        svc->cur_budget = 0;
> -        __set_bit(__RTDS_depleted, &svc->flags);
> +        if ( is_work_conserving(svc) )
> +        {
> +            svc->priority_level++;
>
               ASSERT(svc->priority_level <= 1);

> +            svc->cur_budget = svc->budget;
> +        }
> +        else
> +        {
> +            svc->cur_budget = 0;
> +            __set_bit(__RTDS_depleted, &svc->flags);
> +        }
>      }
>  
The rest looks good to me.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel