Comments on the KSE option
Robert Watson
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Sat Oct 28 10:04:49 UTC 2006
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, David Xu wrote:
> 3) Third, it adds overhead to scheduler (I have already post a number) and
> might make locking more diffcult for per-cpu queue like scheduler, since now
> you always have to contend the ksegrp runqueue lock between many CPUs, also
> because you have build the fairness in the scheduler and every scheduler
> must obey the ksegrp algorithm, it may make more diffcult to implement
> another alogrithm and replace it, see 4).
This is my single biggest concern: our scheduling, thread/process, and context
management paths in the kernel are currently extremely complex. This has a
number of impacts: it makes it extremely hard to read and understand, it adds
significant overhead, and it makes it quite hard to modify and optimize for
increasing numbers of processors. We need to be planning on a world of 128
hardware threads/machine on commodity server hardware in the immediate future,
which means that the current "giant sched_lock" cannot continue much longer.
Kip's prototypes of breaking out sched_lock as part of the sun4v work have
been able to benefit significantly from the reduced complexity of a KSE-free
kernel, and it's fairly clear that the task of improving schedule scalability
is dramatically simpler when the kernel model for threading is more simple.
Regardless of where the specific NO_KSE option in the kernel goes, reducing
kernel scheduler/etc complexity should be a first order of business, because
effective SMP work really depends on that happening.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list