[RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

The following patch makes the MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
configurable from the make *config.  This is more of a proposal since
I'm not really sure where in Kconfig this would best fit. I don't see
why these options shouldn't be user configurable without going into the
kernel headers to change them.

Also, is there a way in the Kconfig to force the checking of
MAX_USER_RT_PRIO <= MAX_RT_PRIO?

-- Steve

(Patched against 2.6.12.2)

Index: vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(revision 263)
+++ vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(working copy)
@@ -389,9 +389,13 @@
  * MAX_RT_PRIO must not be smaller than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO.
  */
 
-#define MAX_USER_RT_PRIO	100
-#define MAX_RT_PRIO		MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
+#define MAX_USER_RT_PRIO	CONFIG_MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
+#define MAX_RT_PRIO		CONFIG_MAX_RT_PRIO
 
+#if MAX_USER_RT_PRIO > MAX_RT_PRIO
+#error MAX_USER_RT_PRIO must not be greater than MAX_RT_PRIO
+#endif
+
 #define MAX_PRIO		(MAX_RT_PRIO + 40)
 
 #define rt_task(p)		(unlikely((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO))
Index: vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig
===================================================================
--- vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig	(revision 263)
+++ vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig	(working copy)
@@ -162,6 +162,32 @@
 	  building a kernel for install/rescue disks or your system is very
 	  limited in memory.
 
+config MAX_RT_PRIO
+	int "Maximum RT priority"
+	default 100
+	help
+	  The real-time priority of threads that have the policy of SCHED_FIFO
+	  or SCHED_RR have a priority higher than normal threads.  This range
+	  can be set here, where the range starts from 0 to MAX_RT_PRIO-1.
+	  If this range is higher than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO than kernel threads
+	  may have a higher priority than any user thread.
+
+	  This may be the same as MAX_USER_RT_PRIO, but do not set this 
+	  to be less than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO.
+
+config MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
+	int "Maximum User RT priority"
+	default 100
+	help
+	  The real-time priority of threads that have the policy of SCHED_FIFO
+	  or SCHED_RR have a priority higher than normal threads.  This range
+	  can be set here, where the range starts from 0 to MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1.
+	  If this range is lower than MAX_RT_PRIO, than kernel threads may have
+	  a higher priority than any user thread.
+
+	  This may be the same as MAX_RT_PRIO, but do not set this to be
+	  greater than MAX_RT_PRIO.
+	  
 config AUDIT
 	bool "Auditing support"
 	default y if SECURITY_SELINUX

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> The following patch makes the MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO 
> configurable from the make *config.  This is more of a proposal since 
> I'm not really sure where in Kconfig this would best fit. I don't see 
> why these options shouldn't be user configurable without going into 
> the kernel headers to change them.

i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is 
pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. The patch to make 
it easier to redefine it is of course fine and was accepted, but i dont 
think we want to make it explicit via .config.

It's a bit like with the 3:1 split: you can redefine it easily via 
include files, but it's not configurable via .config, because many 
people would just play with it and would see things break.

so unless there's really a desire from distributions to actually change 
the 100 RT-prio levels (and i dont sense such a desire), we shouldnt do 
this.

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:17 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is 
> pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. The patch to make 
> it easier to redefine it is of course fine and was accepted, but i dont 
> think we want to make it explicit via .config.
> 
> It's a bit like with the 3:1 split: you can redefine it easily via 
> include files, but it's not configurable via .config, because many 
> people would just play with it and would see things break.
> 
> so unless there's really a desire from distributions to actually change 
> the 100 RT-prio levels (and i dont sense such a desire), we shouldnt do 
> this.

Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the
priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config option
wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I thought that
this might be something that others want.  But I deal with a niche
market, and what my customers want might not be what everyone wants.
(hence the RFC in the subject).

So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their
priority ranges,  speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste
side.

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:17 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is 
> pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. 

I must argue though, any user app that assumes 100 is the max prio is
already broken.  That's why there are system calls to get the actual
range.  Maybe it would be good to change the range to find the apps that
break. And then fix them.

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the 
> priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config 
> option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I 
> thought that this might be something that others want.  But I deal 
> with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what 
> everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
> 
> So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their 
> priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste 
> side.

i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
with.

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:17 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is 
> > pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. 
> 
> I must argue though, any user app that assumes 100 is the max prio is 
> already broken.  That's why there are system calls to get the actual 
> range.  Maybe it would be good to change the range to find the apps 
> that break. And then fix them.

a fair number of apps assume that there's _at least_ 100 levels of 
priorities. The moment you have a custom kernel that offers more than 
100 priorities, there will be apps that assume that there are more than 
100 priority levels, and will break if there are less.

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> a fair number of apps assume that there's _at least_ 100 levels of 
> priorities. The moment you have a custom kernel that offers more than 
> 100 priorities, there will be apps that assume that there are more than 
> 100 priority levels, and will break if there are less.

That's not the same. The apps on my computer right now should not assume
that I have 100 priorities.  Since I'm free to work with any kernel that
I want.  The customers that ask for a custom kernel are also writing
custom apps for a specific product.  Things can be assumed more since
the apps are not generic tools that are running on desktops.  In fact,
some of these apps require special hardware to work (at least a driver
to imitate the hardware).

-- Steve

[PATCH] safty check of MAX_RT_PRIO >= MAX_USER_RT_PRIO

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
> should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
> not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
> with.

So Ingo, would you agree that at least this patch should go in?

-- Steve

(Patched against 2.6.12.2)

Index: vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(revision 263)
+++ vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(working copy)
@@ -392,6 +392,10 @@
 #define MAX_USER_RT_PRIO	100
 #define MAX_RT_PRIO		MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
 
+#if MAX_USER_RT_PRIO > MAX_RT_PRIO
+#error MAX_USER_RT_PRIO must not be greater than MAX_RT_PRIO
+#endif
+
 #define MAX_PRIO		(MAX_RT_PRIO + 40)
 
 #define rt_task(p)		(unlikely((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO))

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Esben Nielsen]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the 
> > priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config 
> > option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I 
> > thought that this might be something that others want.  But I deal 
> > with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what 
> > everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
> > 
> > So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their 
> > priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste 
> > side.
> 
> i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
> should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
> not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
> with.
> 
Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?

Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.

Esben

> 	Ingo
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:53 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?

Sure,

  config MAX_RT_PRIO
     int "Maximum RT priority (DANGEROUS!)"


> 
> Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
> down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
> Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
> a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
> priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
> app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
> scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.

I've wondered this too, especially when customers ask for more.  I never
question them (don't bite the hand that feeds you), but I really think
that they like to prioritize things by 10.  So you go from 10 20 30
instead, leaving room in between incase you forget something. Kind of
like the old BASIC programming days with line numbers.

There's also the case that you have groups of tasks that are all higher
in priority than other groups.  But the tasks themselves have priorities
with each other.  So you group the tasks in a range where they are
greater than or less then other task groups.  And then you can arrange
the tasks yourself.  But this all gets quite complex and then leads to
more custom kernels :-)

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] safty check of MAX_RT_PRIO >= MAX_USER_RT_PRIO

[Steven Rostedt]

The subject should be "[PATCH] safety check of MAX_RT_PRIO >=
MAX_USER_RT_PRIO".  Ever since I've upgraded my debian unstable, I've
lost my spell checking!

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[K.R. Foley]

Esben Nielsen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> 
>>* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the 
>>>priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config 
>>>option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I 
>>>thought that this might be something that others want.  But I deal 
>>>with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what 
>>>everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
>>>
>>>So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their 
>>>priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste 
>>>side.
>>
>>i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
>>should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
>>not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
>>with.
>>
> 
> Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?
> 
> Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
> down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
> Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
> a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
> priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
> app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
> scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.
> 
> Esben
> 

Actually, is it really that slow to search a bitmap for a slot that 
needs processing? I work on real-time test stands which are less of an 
embedded system and more of a real Unix system that require determinism. 
It is very nice in some cases to have more than 10 RT priorities to work 
with.

-- 
    kr

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Esben Nielsen]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, K.R. Foley wrote:

> Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the 
> >>>priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config 
> >>>option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I 
> >>>thought that this might be something that others want.  But I deal 
> >>>with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what 
> >>>everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
> >>>
> >>>So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their 
> >>>priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste 
> >>>side.
> >>
> >>i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
> >>should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
> >>not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
> >>with.
> >>
> > 
> > Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?
> > 
> > Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
> > down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
> > Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
> > a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
> > priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
> > app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
> > scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.
> > 
> > Esben
> > 
> 
> Actually, is it really that slow to search a bitmap for a slot that 
> needs processing? 
No, it is ultra fast - but done very often.

> I work on real-time test stands which are less of an 
> embedded system and more of a real Unix system that require determinism. 
> It is very nice in some cases to have more than 10 RT priorities to work 
> with.

What for? Why can't you use FIFO at the same priorities for some of your
tasks? I pretty much quess you have a very few tasks which have some high
requirements. The rest of you "RT" task could easily share the lowest RT
priority. FIFO would also be more effective as you will have context
switches.

This about multiple priorities probably comes from an ordering of tasks:
You have a lot of task. You have a feeling about which one ought to be
more important than the other. Thus you end of with an ordered list of
tasks. BUT when you boil it down to what RT is all about, namely
meeting your deadlines, it doesn't matter after the 5-10 priorities
because the 5-10 priorities have introduced a lot of jitter to the rest
of the tasks anyway. You can just as well just put them at the same
priority.

Esben

> 
> -- 
>     kr
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 19:01 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> 
> What for? Why can't you use FIFO at the same priorities for some of your
> tasks? I pretty much quess you have a very few tasks which have some high
> requirements. The rest of you "RT" task could easily share the lowest RT
> priority. FIFO would also be more effective as you will have context
> switches.
> 
> This about multiple priorities probably comes from an ordering of tasks:
> You have a lot of task. You have a feeling about which one ought to be
> more important than the other. Thus you end of with an ordered list of
> tasks. BUT when you boil it down to what RT is all about, namely
> meeting your deadlines, it doesn't matter after the 5-10 priorities
> because the 5-10 priorities have introduced a lot of jitter to the rest
> of the tasks anyway. You can just as well just put them at the same
> priority.

Nope, I wouldn't agree with you here.  If you have tasks that will run
periodically, at different frequencies, you need to order them. And each
task would probably need a different priority. FIFO is very dangerous
since it doesn't release a task until that task voluntarily sleeps.

A colleague of mine, well actually the VP of my company of the time,
Doug Locke, gave me a perfect example.  If you have a program that runs
a nuclear power plant that needs to wake up and run 4 seconds every 10
seconds, and on that same computer you have a program running a washing
machine that needs to wake up every 3 seconds and run for one second
(I'm using seconds just to make the example simple). Which process gets
the higher priority?  The answer is the washing machine.

Rational:  If the power plant was higher priority, the washing machine
would fail almost every time, since the power plant program would run
for 4 seconds, and since the cycle of the washing machine is 3 seconds,
it would fail everytime the nuclear power plant program ran.  Now if you
have the washing machine run in it's cycle, the nuclear power plant can
easily make the 4 seconds ever 10 seconds, even when it is interrupted
by the washing machine.

Doug also mentioned that you really want to have every task with a
different priority, so it makes sense to have a lot of priorities.  I
can't remember why he said this, but I'm sure you and I can find out by
searching through his papers.

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[K.R. Foley]

Esben Nielsen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, K.R. Foley wrote:
> 
> 
>>Esben Nielsen wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Perfectly understood.  I've had two customers ask me to increase the 
>>>>>priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config 
>>>>>option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I 
>>>>>thought that this might be something that others want.  But I deal 
>>>>>with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what 
>>>>>everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
>>>>>
>>>>>So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their 
>>>>>priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste 
>>>>>side.
>>>>
>>>>i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
>>>>should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
>>>>not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
>>>>with.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?
>>>
>>>Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
>>>down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
>>>Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
>>>a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
>>>priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
>>>app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
>>>scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.
>>>
>>>Esben
>>>
>>
>>Actually, is it really that slow to search a bitmap for a slot that 
>>needs processing? 
> 
> No, it is ultra fast - but done very often.
> 

:-) I'm not going to argue this. You could definitely save a few 
instructions if you had fewer priorities and it probably wouldn't be 
very hard to create a patch to do this.

> 
>>I work on real-time test stands which are less of an 
>>embedded system and more of a real Unix system that require determinism. 
>>It is very nice in some cases to have more than 10 RT priorities to work 
>>with.
> 
> 
> What for? Why can't you use FIFO at the same priorities for some of your
> tasks? I pretty much quess you have a very few tasks which have some high
> requirements. The rest of you "RT" task could easily share the lowest RT
> priority. FIFO would also be more effective as you will have context
> switches.
> 
> This about multiple priorities probably comes from an ordering of tasks:
> You have a lot of task. You have a feeling about which one ought to be
> more important than the other. Thus you end of with an ordered list of
> tasks. BUT when you boil it down to what RT is all about, namely
> meeting your deadlines, it doesn't matter after the 5-10 priorities
> because the 5-10 priorities have introduced a lot of jitter to the rest
> of the tasks anyway. You can just as well just put them at the same
> priority.
> 
> Esben

All of the RT priorities that we have are not absolutely necessary. As I 
think Steven pointed out in another email, it is nice though to be able 
to priortize tasks using large jumps in priorities and then being able 
to fill in tasks that are dependent on other tasks in between. Even if 
you think of nothing but the IRQ handlers, the 5-10 priorities quickly 
get crowded without any user tasks.


-- 
    kr

Re: [PATCH] safty check of MAX_RT_PRIO >= MAX_USER_RT_PRIO

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We 
> > should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to 
> > not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled 
> > with.
> 
> So Ingo, would you agree that at least this patch should go in?

yeah.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Esben Nielsen]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 19:01 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > 
> > What for? Why can't you use FIFO at the same priorities for some of your
> > tasks? I pretty much quess you have a very few tasks which have some high
> > requirements. The rest of you "RT" task could easily share the lowest RT
> > priority. FIFO would also be more effective as you will have context
> > switches.
> > 
> > This about multiple priorities probably comes from an ordering of tasks:
> > You have a lot of task. You have a feeling about which one ought to be
> > more important than the other. Thus you end of with an ordered list of
> > tasks. BUT when you boil it down to what RT is all about, namely
> > meeting your deadlines, it doesn't matter after the 5-10 priorities
> > because the 5-10 priorities have introduced a lot of jitter to the rest
> > of the tasks anyway. You can just as well just put them at the same
> > priority.
> 
> Nope, I wouldn't agree with you here.  If you have tasks that will run
> periodically, at different frequencies, you need to order them. And each
> task would probably need a different priority. FIFO is very dangerous
> since it doesn't release a task until that task voluntarily sleeps.
> 
> A colleague of mine, well actually the VP of my company of the time,
> Doug Locke, gave me a perfect example.  If you have a program that runs
> a nuclear power plant that needs to wake up and run 4 seconds every 10
> seconds, and on that same computer you have a program running a washing
> machine that needs to wake up every 3 seconds and run for one second
> (I'm using seconds just to make the example simple). Which process gets
> the higher priority?  The answer is the washing machine.
> 
> Rational:  If the power plant was higher priority, the washing machine
> would fail almost every time, since the power plant program would run
> for 4 seconds, and since the cycle of the washing machine is 3 seconds,
> it would fail everytime the nuclear power plant program ran.  Now if you
> have the washing machine run in it's cycle, the nuclear power plant can
> easily make the 4 seconds ever 10 seconds, even when it is interrupted
> by the washing machine.
> 

This is rate monotonic scheduling
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-monotonic_scheduling).
((Notice: The article gets it wrong on the priority inheritance/ceiling
stuff...))
(Notice: The fewer tasks the higher the theoretical max to the CPU
utialization :-)
In theory it works fine, but there is some drawbacks when you go to
reality:
1) You have to know the running time of all your tasks.
2) The running time is assumed contant.
3) You don't take into account the time it takes to perform a task switch.
4) Mutual exclution isn't considered.
5) What if things aren't periodic?

To make this work according to the theory you have to make a really,
really detailled analysis of your system. It is not really posible for
more than a few tasks. In practise you will have to be very much below the
theoretical limit for CPU utialization to be safe. 

And my claim is:
All the different periodic jobs you want to perform can most often easily
be put into groups like 1ms, 5ms, 20ms, 100ms groups. In each group you
can easily run with fifo preemption - and even within one OS thread.

Think about it: If you have two tasks with close to the same period and
one runs too long for the other to meets it's deadlines within fifo setup,
you are bound to be very close to the limits no matter which one you give
the highest priority.

> Doug also mentioned that you really want to have every task with a
> different priority, so it makes sense to have a lot of priorities.  I
> can't remember why he said this, but I'm sure you and I can find out by
> searching through his papers.
> 

On the contrary. Especially if you have mutual exclustion. If you run two
tasks at the same priority with fifo you don't hit congestion on you
mutexes (between those two tasks at least). If you give one of them just
one higher priority it will preempt the other. You thus risk congestion -
which is an expensive thing. Thus by giving your tasks different
priorities you risk that you system can't meet the deadlines due to the
extra CPU used!!

> -- Steve
> 
> 
> 

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Daniel Walker]

Don't you break sched_find_first_bit() , seems it's dependent on a 
140-bit bitmap .

Daniel


On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The following patch makes the MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> configurable from the make *config.  This is more of a proposal since
> I'm not really sure where in Kconfig this would best fit. I don't see
> why these options shouldn't be user configurable without going into the
> kernel headers to change them.
> 
> Also, is there a way in the Kconfig to force the checking of
> MAX_USER_RT_PRIO <= MAX_RT_PRIO?
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> (Patched against 2.6.12.2)
> 
> Index: vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(revision 263)
> +++ vanilla_kernel/include/linux/sched.h	(working copy)
> @@ -389,9 +389,13 @@
>   * MAX_RT_PRIO must not be smaller than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO.
>   */
>  
> -#define MAX_USER_RT_PRIO	100
> -#define MAX_RT_PRIO		MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> +#define MAX_USER_RT_PRIO	CONFIG_MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> +#define MAX_RT_PRIO		CONFIG_MAX_RT_PRIO
>  
> +#if MAX_USER_RT_PRIO > MAX_RT_PRIO
> +#error MAX_USER_RT_PRIO must not be greater than MAX_RT_PRIO
> +#endif
> +
>  #define MAX_PRIO		(MAX_RT_PRIO + 40)
>  
>  #define rt_task(p)		(unlikely((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO))
> Index: vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig	(revision 263)
> +++ vanilla_kernel/init/Kconfig	(working copy)
> @@ -162,6 +162,32 @@
>  	  building a kernel for install/rescue disks or your system is very
>  	  limited in memory.
>  
> +config MAX_RT_PRIO
> +	int "Maximum RT priority"
> +	default 100
> +	help
> +	  The real-time priority of threads that have the policy of SCHED_FIFO
> +	  or SCHED_RR have a priority higher than normal threads.  This range
> +	  can be set here, where the range starts from 0 to MAX_RT_PRIO-1.
> +	  If this range is higher than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO than kernel threads
> +	  may have a higher priority than any user thread.
> +
> +	  This may be the same as MAX_USER_RT_PRIO, but do not set this 
> +	  to be less than MAX_USER_RT_PRIO.
> +
> +config MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> +	int "Maximum User RT priority"
> +	default 100
> +	help
> +	  The real-time priority of threads that have the policy of SCHED_FIFO
> +	  or SCHED_RR have a priority higher than normal threads.  This range
> +	  can be set here, where the range starts from 0 to MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1.
> +	  If this range is lower than MAX_RT_PRIO, than kernel threads may have
> +	  a higher priority than any user thread.
> +
> +	  This may be the same as MAX_RT_PRIO, but do not set this to be
> +	  greater than MAX_RT_PRIO.
> +	  
>  config AUDIT
>  	bool "Auditing support"
>  	default y if SECURITY_SELINUX
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Lee Revell]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:00 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Don't you break sched_find_first_bit() , seems it's dependent on a 
> 140-bit bitmap .

And doesn't POSIX specify 100 RT priority levels?

Lee

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:00 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Don't you break sched_find_first_bit() , seems it's dependent on a 
> 140-bit bitmap .

Oops! I forgot about that. With my custom kernels I had to change this
to use the generic find_first_bit routine. It's been a while since I
made these changes.  So when we really need to have custom settings, we
would have to change this.  I should have remembered this, since it did
cause me couple of days of debugging.  Anyway, I never did the
measurements, but does anyone know what the performance difference is
between find_first_bit and sched_find_first_bit? I guess I'll do it and
report back later.  This should also be in a comment around changing
these settings.

Thanks,

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 21:20 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:00 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Don't you break sched_find_first_bit() , seems it's dependent on a 
> > 140-bit bitmap .
> 
> And doesn't POSIX specify 100 RT priority levels?

My customers don't care about POSIX :-)

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > The following patch makes the MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO 
> > configurable from the make *config.  This is more of a proposal since 
> > I'm not really sure where in Kconfig this would best fit. I don't see 
> > why these options shouldn't be user configurable without going into 
> > the kernel headers to change them.
> 
> i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is 
> pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. The patch to make 
> it easier to redefine it is of course fine and was accepted, but i dont 
> think we want to make it explicit via .config.
> 
> It's a bit like with the 3:1 split: you can redefine it easily via 
> include files, but it's not configurable via .config, because many 
> people would just play with it and would see things break.
> 
> so unless there's really a desire from distributions to actually change 
> the 100 RT-prio levels (and i dont sense such a desire), we shouldnt do 
> this.

The queues take a fairly substantial amount of memory. I've had an
option for configuring this under CONFIG_EMBEDDED in the -tiny tree
for quite some time.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2102 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 21:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:00 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Don't you break sched_find_first_bit() , seems it's dependent on a 
> > 140-bit bitmap .
> 
> Oops! I forgot about that. With my custom kernels I had to change this
> to use the generic find_first_bit routine. It's been a while since I
> made these changes.  So when we really need to have custom settings, we
> would have to change this.  I should have remembered this, since it did
> cause me couple of days of debugging.  Anyway, I never did the
> measurements, but does anyone know what the performance difference is
> between find_first_bit and sched_find_first_bit? I guess I'll do it and
> report back later.  This should also be in a comment around changing
> these settings.

OK, here's the benchmark. Attached is the program that I used, and
compiled it this way:

gcc -O2 -o ffb ffb.c

and here's the results:

clock speed = 00000000:7f30c931 2133903665 ticks per second
last bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:02755284
time: 0.019327615us
sched ffb: 00000000:001e8f2b
time: 0.000938529us

first bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:01ea41f0
time: 0.015056688us
sched ffb: 00000000:001e8eff
time: 0.000938509us


/proc/cpuinfo shows that I have a SMP Authentic AMD running at 
2133.635 MHz.  The SMP doesn't matter for this test, but the Hz goes
right in line to the above BS tick measure.  I ran both the generic ffb
and the sched_find_first_bit 1,000,000 times each and took the
measurements of both.  The sched_find_first_bit ran 20 times faster!!!
So that is quite an improvement.  Even when I set the first bit, it is
15 times faster. The time between the two for the sched_ffb is pretty
much constant, where as the ffb is quicker the closer the bit is (as
expected).  But we are talking 19ns to do this, and a colleague of mine
said that this is just eliminating a fart in the wind storm.  But I
still think that the ffb should be better for something like the
scheduler.  Well, I guess I can spend some more time playing with
algorithms that can improve the ffb :-)

-- Steve


[-- Attachment #2: ffb.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 2650 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>

#define unlikely(x)	__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)

static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
{
	int d0, d1;
	int res;

	/* This looks at memory. Mark it volatile to tell gcc not to move it around */
	__asm__ __volatile__(
		"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
		"repe; scasl\n\t"
		"jz 1f\n\t"
		"leal -4(%%edi),%%edi\n\t"
		"bsfl (%%edi),%%eax\n"
		"1:\tsubl %%ebx,%%edi\n\t"
		"shll $3,%%edi\n\t"
		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr) : "memory");
	return res;
}

static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
{
	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
		:"=r" (word)
		:"rm" (word));
	return word;
}

static inline int sched_find_first_bit(const unsigned long *b)
{
	if (unlikely(b[0]))
		return __ffs(b[0]);
	if (unlikely(b[1]))
		return __ffs(b[1]) + 32;
	if (unlikely(b[2]))
		return __ffs(b[2]) + 64;
	if (b[3])
		return __ffs(b[3]) + 96;
	return __ffs(b[4]) + 128;
}

#define rdtscll(val) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=A" (val))

#define rdtsc(low,high) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=a" (low), "=d" (high))

static unsigned long array[5];

#define ITER 1000000 /* 1,000,000 times */

void testit(unsigned long *array, unsigned long long clock)
{
	unsigned long long s1;
	unsigned long long e1;
	unsigned long long s2;
	unsigned long long e2;
	unsigned long long t1;
	unsigned long long t2;
	double f1;
	double f2;
	int i;
	int x;
	
	rdtscll(s1);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = find_first_bit(array,140);
	rdtscll(e1);

	rdtscll(s2);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = sched_find_first_bit(array);
	rdtscll(e2);
	
	t1 = e1 - s1;
	t2 = e2 - s2;
	f1 = (float)t1 / (float)clock;
	f2 = (float)t2 / (float)clock;

	/*
	 * Since ITER is 1,000,000 the times will be in us.
	 */
	printf("generic ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t1>>32),(unsigned long)t1);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f1);
			
	printf("sched ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t2>>32),(unsigned long)t2);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f2);
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	unsigned long long s;
	unsigned long long e;
	unsigned long long t;
	unsigned long long clock;

	/*
	 * Calculate BS time, just to get an 
	 * idea of the tsc speed.
	 */
	rdtscll(s);
	sleep(8);
	rdtscll(e);
	
	t = e - s;
	t >>= 3;
	printf("clock speed = %08lx:%08lx %llu ticks per second\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t,
			t);
	clock = t;

	array[4] = 0x80000000;
	printf("last bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);

	array[0] = 0x00000001;
	printf("\nfirst bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);
	
	exit(0);
}

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2432 bytes --]

New benchmarks with my own formula.

I added my own find_first_bit algorithm, that still doesn't quite beat
Ingo's sched_find_first_bit, but it does a number on the generic
find_first_bit.  I guess the compiler has finally beat what we do in
asm.  Here's my generic algorithm.

static inline int my_find_first_bit(const unsigned long *b, unsigned size)
{
        int x = 0;
        size += 31;
        do {
                if (unlikely(*b))
                        return __ffs(*b) + x;
                b++;
                x += 32;
        } while (x < size);
        return x-32;
}


And here's the new results of my benchmark: Comments added.

/*
 * I put in what is returned to see what really is returned is
 * correct.  Funny that sched_find_first_bit is wrong if there
 * isn't a bit set. But this shouldn't be called if there isn't
 * one set.
 */
sched=128  ffb=160  my=160
clock speed = 00000000:7f2f2cbb 2133798075 ticks per second
/* Here I set the last bit of 5 32bit words. */
sched=159  ffb=159  my=159
last bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:026a1cea
time: 0.018984294us
sched ffb: 00000000:001ee719
time: 0.000949125us
/*
 * My time is 8ns, 8 times longer than Ingo's if the last
 * bit is set (most likely case), but still more than twice 
 * as fast as ffb.
 */
my ffb: 00000000:0106a3dd
time: 0.008066546us
sched=0  ffb=0  my=0

first bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:01ee8e2b
time: 0.015189432us
sched ffb: 00000000:001eea92
time: 0.000949542us
/*
 * With the first bit set, I'm still slower than Ingo's
 * but only by 2, and I still beat the pants off of ffb.
 */
my ffb: 00000000:004d5de6
time: 0.002376190us


Conclusion:  it looks like it might be time to change the i386 generic
ffb to something else.

Oh, and if you are wondering...


$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c
++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr --enable-shared
--with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --program-suffix=-4.0
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt
--enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-java-gc=boehm
--enable-java-awt=gtk
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-4.0-1.4.2.0/jre
--enable-mpfr --disable-werror --enable-checking=release i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.1 (Debian 4.0.1-2)

-- Steve

Attached is new version of ffb.c

[-- Attachment #2: ffb.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 3385 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>

#define unlikely(x)	__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)

static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
{
	int d0, d1;
	int res;

	/* This looks at memory. Mark it volatile to tell gcc not to move it around */
	__asm__ __volatile__(
		"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
		"repe; scasl\n\t"
		"jz 1f\n\t"
		"leal -4(%%edi),%%edi\n\t"
		"bsfl (%%edi),%%eax\n"
		"1:\tsubl %%ebx,%%edi\n\t"
		"shll $3,%%edi\n\t"
		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr) : "memory");
	return res;
}

static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
{
	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
		:"=r" (word)
		:"rm" (word));
	return word;
}

static inline int sched_find_first_bit(const unsigned long *b)
{
	if (unlikely(b[0]))
		return __ffs(b[0]);
	if (unlikely(b[1]))
		return __ffs(b[1]) + 32;
	if (unlikely(b[2]))
		return __ffs(b[2]) + 64;
	if (b[3])
		return __ffs(b[3]) + 96;
	return __ffs(b[4]) + 128;
}

static inline int my_find_first_bit(const unsigned long *b, unsigned size)
{
	int x = 0;
	size += 31;
	do {
		if (unlikely(*b))
			return __ffs(*b) + x;
		b++;
		x += 32;
	} while (x < size);
	return x-32;
}

#define rdtscll(val) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=A" (val))

#define rdtsc(low,high) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=a" (low), "=d" (high))

static unsigned long array[5];

#define ITER 1000000 /* 1,000,000 times */

void testit(unsigned long *array, unsigned long long clock)
{
	unsigned long long s;
	unsigned long long e;
	unsigned long long t;
	double f;
	int i;
	int x;
	
	/*
	 * Since ITER is 1,000,000 the times will be in us.
	 */

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = find_first_bit(array,140);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("generic ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = sched_find_first_bit(array);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("sched ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = my_find_first_bit(array,140);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("my ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);

}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	unsigned long long s;
	unsigned long long e;
	unsigned long long t;
	unsigned long long clock;

	printf("sched=%d  ffb=%d  my=%d\n",
			sched_find_first_bit(array),
			find_first_bit(array,140),
			my_find_first_bit(array,140));
	/*
	 * Calculate BS time, just to get an 
	 * idea of the tsc speed.
	 */
	rdtscll(s);
	sleep(8);
	rdtscll(e);
	
	t = e - s;
	t >>= 3;
	printf("clock speed = %08lx:%08lx %llu ticks per second\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t,
			t);
	clock = t;

	array[4] = 0x80000000;
	printf("sched=%d  ffb=%d  my=%d\n",
			sched_find_first_bit(array),
			find_first_bit(array,140),
			my_find_first_bit(array,140));
	printf("last bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);

	array[0] = 0x00000001;
	printf("sched=%d  ffb=%d  my=%d\n",
			sched_find_first_bit(array),
			find_first_bit(array,140),
			my_find_first_bit(array,140));
	printf("\nfirst bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);
	
	exit(0);
}

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 23:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> New benchmarks with my own formula.
> 

Take two: I ran this on my laptop (IBM ThinkPad G41 with an 3.3GHz
Pentium 4 HT processor, yeah yeah, no battery life :-).  But this has an
older compiler.

$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux-gnu/3.3.6/specs
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c
++,java,f77,pascal,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/3.3 --enable-shared
--enable-__cxa_atexit --with-system-zlib --enable-nls
--without-included-gettext --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-debug
--enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=xlib --enable-objc-gc
i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-7)


Here's the results on it:

compiled again with "gcc -O2 -o ffb ffb.c"

/* comments embedded */


sched=128  ffb=160  my=160
/* this is a 3.3GHz so clocks look good */
clock speed = 00000000:c5e54f4c 3320139596 ticks per second
sched=159  ffb=159  my=159
last bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:0a25b1d0
/* Hmm, all generic ffb is even slower? do I blame gcc or Intel? */
time: 0.051275712us
sched ffb: 00000000:0023ae21
/* double Hmm, Ingo's is faster !? */
time: 0.000704289us
my ffb: 00000000:019c458d
/* look at this, mine is the same. Are the three bears coming around soon :-) */
time: 0.008137802us
sched=0  ffb=0  my=0

first bit set
generic ffb: 00000000:09766c3c
time: 0.047816034us
sched ffb: 00000000:0023c79f
time: 0.000706254us
my ffb: 00000000:005a8758
time: 0.001786939us

OK, still looks like the generic ffb can be changed.  Unless I'm missing
something, this shows that I probably should be sending in a patch now
to replace the find_first_bit.  Ingo's sched_find_first_bit is still the
winner, but that is customed to the scheduler, until we need a
configurable priority.

What do you think?

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Nick Piggin]

Steven Rostedt wrote:

>OK, still looks like the generic ffb can be changed.  Unless I'm missing
>something, this shows that I probably should be sending in a patch now
>to replace the find_first_bit.  Ingo's sched_find_first_bit is still the
>winner, but that is customed to the scheduler, until we need a
>configurable priority.
>
>What do you think?
>
>  
>

Sure, if it is correct and faster.
Just don't mark the (*b) test as unlikely.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> A colleague of mine, well actually the VP of my company of the time, 
> Doug Locke, gave me a perfect example.  If you have a program that 
> runs a nuclear power plant that needs to wake up and run 4 seconds 
> every 10 seconds, and on that same computer you have a program running 
> a washing machine that needs to wake up every 3 seconds and run for 
> one second (I'm using seconds just to make the example simple). Which 
> process gets the higher priority?  The answer is the washing machine.
> 
> Rational: If the power plant was higher priority, the washing machine 
> would fail almost every time, since the power plant program would run 
> for 4 seconds, and since the cycle of the washing machine is 3 
> seconds, it would fail everytime the nuclear power plant program ran.  
> Now if you have the washing machine run in it's cycle, the nuclear 
> power plant can easily make the 4 seconds ever 10 seconds, even when 
> it is interrupted by the washing machine.

nitpicking: i guess the answer also depends on what the precise 
requirement is. If the requirement is 'run for 4 seconds every 10 
seconds, uninterrupted, else the power plant melts down', i'd sure not 
make the washing machine process the higher priority one ;-)

(also, i'd give the power plant process higher priority even if the 
requirement is not as strict, just from a risk POV: what if the washing 
machine control program is buggy and got into an infinite loop 
somewhere.)

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > a fair number of apps assume that there's _at least_ 100 levels of 
> > priorities. The moment you have a custom kernel that offers more than 
> > 100 priorities, there will be apps that assume that there are more than 
> > 100 priority levels, and will break if there are less.
> 
> That's not the same. The apps on my computer right now should not 
> assume that I have 100 priorities.  Since I'm free to work with any 
> kernel that I want.  The customers that ask for a custom kernel are 
> also writing custom apps for a specific product.  Things can be 
> assumed more since the apps are not generic tools that are running on 
> desktops.  In fact, some of these apps require special hardware to 
> work (at least a driver to imitate the hardware).

what i mean is that once there's such a .config option in the generic 
kernel, the cat is out of the bag and there's no way back. In other 
words, increasing the number of priorities is an irreversible change, in 
terms of binary compatibility.

there's absolutely no problem with tweaking your kernel for special 
purposes, and i support all the patches to make it easier (as long as 
there's no cost to the kernel - and there's no such cost so far). But 
whenever some change in the generic kernel has a user-visible effect, 
especially one that is pretty much irreversible, we have to be very 
careful.

(I think in the longer term we might want to do something more clever 
than a blanket increase of the priority levels, we could e.g. put a 
mapping layer between user priorities and kernel priorities, and in fact 
we could make 'user-visible' RT priorities a bit more structured, like a 
hierarchy of levels - while keeping the in-kernel priorities a fast & 
flat thing (which could have more than 100 levels - but that would not 
be visible externally). There's some demand for that, but we'll have to 
wait and see for real demand and real code to crystalise out.)

	Ingo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Esben Nielsen]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, K.R. Foley wrote:

> Esben Nielsen wrote:
> [...]
> 
> All of the RT priorities that we have are not absolutely necessary. As I 
> think Steven pointed out in another email, it is nice though to be able 
> to priortize tasks using large jumps in priorities and then being able 
> to fill in tasks that are dependent on other tasks in between. 

For portability you shouldn't hardcode your priorities anyway. You need
some sort of abstraction layer. It should be very simple to code one such 
you at least can avoid having gaps in your priorities. Making it figure
out who can share priorities is probably harder. 
Under all circumstances: You are stressing the system run-time because you
didn't do a proper job compile and boot time. 

> Even if 
> you think of nothing but the IRQ handlers, the 5-10 priorities quickly 
> get crowded without any user tasks.

Why do the irq-handlers need _different_ priorities? Do they really have
to preempt each other? It is likely that  the longest handler runs
longer than the accepted latency for the most critical handler. Thus the
most critical handler has to preempt that one. But I bet you don't have a
system with 10 interrupts source where handler 1 needs to preempt handler 
2, handler 2 needs to preempt handler 3 etc. At most you have a system
where handlers 1-3 need to preempt handlers 4-10 (and the application)
handler 4 and 5 need to preempt handler 6-10, while handlers 6-10 don't
need to preempt any of the other handlers. In that case you only need 3
priorities, not 5-10. (The highest priority can very well be hard-irq
context :-). 
Then add 2 RT priorities for your application. You need one thread to
handle the data from the high priority interrupt and 1 for the middle
interrupt. You thus have 5 RT priorities
 1: handlers 1-3 (can be in hard irq)
 2: application thread 1
 3: handlers 4 and 5
 4: application thread 2
 5: the rest of the irq handlers

Even as your application grows big it doesn't help throwing in more
priorities. If a task runs for very long and have a low latency limit you
will have a hard time no matter what you do. If all the low latency stuff
runs sufficient fast it can just as well run with FIFO priority wrt. each
other.
And even if you split the stuff up in seperate OS threads giving them the
same RT priority and FIFO policy will make things run faster due to fewer
task switches. Preemption is expensive. Even though you want it, you
should design your system such it doesn't happen too often.

Esben

> 
> 
> -- 
>     kr
> 

[PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Steven Rostedt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5133 bytes --]

In the thread "[RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
configurable" I discovered that a C version of find_first_bit is faster
than the asm version now when compiled against gcc 3.3.6 and gcc 4.0.1
(both from versions of Debian unstable).  I wrote a benchmark (attached)
that runs the code 1,000,000 times. First I do it with no bits set,
followed by the last bit set, a middle bit set and then the first bit
set.  Only when no bits are set is the asm version of find_first_bit
faster and that is only when I ran it with gcc 4.0.1 (is gcc at fault
here?). I haven't spent any time actually looking at what gcc produces.
I only looked at the measurements.

I compiled this with "gcc -O2 -o ffb ffb.c".  And here's the output.

On an AMD 2.2GHz SMP machine (SMP shouldn't affect the result here).
This is running gcc 4.0.1

/* comments embedded */

/* ticks match speed */
clock speed = 00000000:7f31d02a 2133970986 ticks per second

/* generic ffb (or just ffb) is the code that is currently in the system
 * my ffb (or just my) is my new version that I'm submitting.
 * my ffb 2 (or just my2) is my version playing with unlikely around an
 *   condition.
 */
no bit set
ffb=320  my=320 my2=320
generic ffb: 00000000:02e33f90
time: 0.022702922us
my ffb: 00000000:02ee66e7
time: 0.023045461us
my ffb 2: 00000000:032d63b9
time: 0.024979860us
/*
 * The above shows that the original beats my version when no bit is
 * set.
 */

last bit set
ffb=319  my=319 my2=319
generic ffb: 00000000:0382a116
time: 0.027597643us
my ffb: 00000000:0204c4a9
time: 0.015870375us
my ffb 2: 00000000:03244a1b
time: 0.024700391us
/*
 * Here we see that there's quite an improvement over normal ffb when
 * the last bit is set.
 */

middle bit set
ffb=159  my=159 my2=159
generic ffb: 00000000:02ce2b78
time: 0.022055584us
my ffb: 00000000:01241c5b
time: 0.008970962us
my ffb 2: 00000000:016171ff
time: 0.010854596us
/*
 * Again, there's quite an improvement when a middle bit is set.
 */

first bit set
ffb=0  my=0 my2=0
generic ffb: 00000000:0232456a
time: 0.017267808us
my ffb: 00000000:003dd354
time: 0.001898712us
my ffb 2: 00000000:009d1f74
time: 0.004825372us
/*
 * When the first bit is set, there's ever a greater improvement. 
 */


Now for the results on my laptop with a Pentium 4 HT 3.3GZ. Running 
gcc 3.3.6

clock speed = 00000000:c5de80ef 3319693551 ticks per second

no bit set
ffb=320  my=320 my2=320
generic ffb: 00000000:0aba64db
time: 0.054218162us
my ffb: 00000000:055f6c73
time: 0.027153036us
my ffb 2: 00000000:052e753e
time: 0.026186379us
/*
 * Now we see even when no bits are set, my version beats the asm one.
 */

last bit set
ffb=319  my=319 my2=319
generic ffb: 00000000:0b69c638
time: 0.057680447us
my ffb: 00000000:050a27fb
time: 0.025469722us
my ffb 2: 00000000:04d32d78
time: 0.024384359us

middle bit set
ffb=159  my=159 my2=159
generic ffb: 00000000:0a1bc81f
time: 0.051086903us
my ffb: 00000000:020f3d7d
time: 0.010408554us
my ffb 2: 00000000:0324112a
time: 0.015873555us

first bit set
ffb=0  my=0 my2=0
generic ffb: 00000000:095a794d
time: 0.047270700us
my ffb: 00000000:005af2d0
time: 0.001795467us
my ffb 2: 00000000:005a0537
time: 0.001777144us


With this evidence, I present my patch against the 2.6.12.2 kernel.

Signed-off-by:  Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Index: vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h
===================================================================
--- vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	(revision 263)
+++ vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	(working copy)
@@ -311,6 +311,20 @@
 int find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, int size, int offset);
 
 /**
+ * __ffs - find first bit in word.
+ * @word: The word to search
+ *
+ * Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
+{
+	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
+		:"=r" (word)
+		:"rm" (word));
+	return word;
+}
+
+/**
  * find_first_bit - find the first set bit in a memory region
  * @addr: The address to start the search at
  * @size: The maximum size to search
@@ -320,22 +334,16 @@
  */
 static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
 {
-	int d0, d1;
-	int res;
-
-	/* This looks at memory. Mark it volatile to tell gcc not to move it around */
-	__asm__ __volatile__(
-		"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
-		"repe; scasl\n\t"
-		"jz 1f\n\t"
-		"leal -4(%%edi),%%edi\n\t"
-		"bsfl (%%edi),%%eax\n"
-		"1:\tsubl %%ebx,%%edi\n\t"
-		"shll $3,%%edi\n\t"
-		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
-		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
-		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr) : "memory");
-	return res;
+	int x = 0;
+	do {
+		if (*addr)
+			return __ffs(*addr) + x;
+		addr++;
+		if (x >= size)
+			break;
+		x += 32;
+	} while (1);
+	return x;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -360,20 +368,6 @@
 	return word;
 }
 
-/**
- * __ffs - find first bit in word.
- * @word: The word to search
- *
- * Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
- */
-static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
-{
-	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
-		:"=r" (word)
-		:"rm" (word));
-	return word;
-}
-
 /*
  * fls: find last bit set.
  */


[-- Attachment #2: ffb.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 3303 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>

#define unlikely(x)	__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)

static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
{
	int d0, d1;
	int res;

	/* This looks at memory. Mark it volatile to tell gcc not to move it around */
	__asm__ __volatile__(
		"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
		"repe; scasl\n\t"
		"jz 1f\n\t"
		"leal -4(%%edi),%%edi\n\t"
		"bsfl (%%edi),%%eax\n"
		"1:\tsubl %%ebx,%%edi\n\t"
		"shll $3,%%edi\n\t"
		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr) : "memory");
	return res;
}

static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
{
	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
		:"=r" (word)
		:"rm" (word));
	return word;
}

static inline int my_find_first_bit(const unsigned long *b, unsigned size)
{
	int x = 0;
	do {
		if (*b)
			return __ffs(*b) + x;
		b++;
		if (x >= size)
			break;
		x += 32;
	} while (1);
	return x;
}

static inline int my_find_first_bit2(const unsigned long *b, unsigned size)
{
	int x = 0;
	do {
		if (unlikely(*b))
			return __ffs(*b) + x;
		b++;
		if (x >= size)
			break;
		x += 32;
	} while (1);
	return x;
}
#define rdtscll(val) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=A" (val))

#define rdtsc(low,high) \
	     __asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=a" (low), "=d" (high))

#define BITSIZE 310
static unsigned long array[((BITSIZE)>>5)+1];

#define ITER 1000000 /* 1,000,000 times */

void testit(unsigned long *array, unsigned long long clock)
{
	unsigned long long s;
	unsigned long long e;
	unsigned long long t;
	double f;
	int i;
	int x;
	
	/*
	 * Since ITER is 1,000,000 the times will be in us.
	 */

	/*
	 * Make sure that the output is correct.
	 */
	printf("ffb=%d  my=%d my2=%d\n",
			find_first_bit(array,BITSIZE),
			my_find_first_bit(array,BITSIZE),
			my_find_first_bit2(array,BITSIZE));

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = find_first_bit(array,BITSIZE);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("generic ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = my_find_first_bit(array,BITSIZE);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("my ffb: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);

	rdtscll(s);
	for (i=0; i < ITER; i++) 
		x = my_find_first_bit2(array,BITSIZE);
	rdtscll(e);
	t = e - s;
	f = (float)t / (float)clock;
	printf("my ffb 2: %08lx:%08lx\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t);
	printf("time: %.09fus\n",f);
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	unsigned long long s;
	unsigned long long e;
	unsigned long long t;
	unsigned long long clock;

	/*
	 * Calculate BS time, just to get an 
	 * idea of the tsc speed.
	 */
	rdtscll(s);
	sleep(8);
	rdtscll(e);
	
	t = e - s;
	t >>= 3;
	printf("clock speed = %08lx:%08lx %llu ticks per second\n",
			(unsigned long)(t>>32),(unsigned long)t,
			t);
	clock = t;

	printf("\nno bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);

	array[BITSIZE>>5] = 0x80000000;
	printf("\nlast bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);

	array[4] = 0x80000000;
	printf("\nmiddle bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);

	array[0] = 0x00000001;
	printf("\nfirst bit set\n");
	testit(array,clock);
	
	exit(0);
}

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> nitpicking: i guess the answer also depends on what the precise 
> requirement is. If the requirement is 'run for 4 seconds every 10 
> seconds, uninterrupted, else the power plant melts down', i'd sure not 
> make the washing machine process the higher priority one ;-)
> 
> (also, i'd give the power plant process higher priority even if the 
> requirement is not as strict, just from a risk POV: what if the washing 
> machine control program is buggy and got into an infinite loop 
> somewhere.)

Doug also said that you're an idiot if you run a washing machine from
the same computer you run a nuclear power plant from :-) 

The point that he was making though is that if you want a system that
runs without flaws, you don't always prioritize the same way the real
world would prioritize.  You need to do it with math.

-- Steve

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 23:32 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:

> 
> This is rate monotonic scheduling
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-monotonic_scheduling).

Bingo! you win the cigar!

> ((Notice: The article gets it wrong on the priority inheritance/ceiling
> stuff...))
It's too early in the morning for me.  What's wrong with this?

> (Notice: The fewer tasks the higher the theoretical max to the CPU
> utialization :-)
> In theory it works fine, but there is some drawbacks when you go to
> reality:
> 1) You have to know the running time of all your tasks.

We look at the maximum running time to finish the job.

> 2) The running time is assumed contant.

Just the maximum.

> 3) You don't take into account the time it takes to perform a task switch.

We add that on top of the running time.

> 4) Mutual exclution isn't considered.

We also add a buffer on top of running time for all locks held.

> 5) What if things aren't periodic?

They are not given a high priority.

> 
> To make this work according to the theory you have to make a really,
> really detailled analysis of your system. It is not really posible for
> more than a few tasks. In practise you will have to be very much below the
> theoretical limit for CPU utialization to be safe. 

I just write the code, my customers are the expert on their system :-)

But I do know that we do not go to the limit of CPU utilization. There
is always a buffer on all RT projects I've been on.

> 
> And my claim is:
> All the different periodic jobs you want to perform can most often easily
> be put into groups like 1ms, 5ms, 20ms, 100ms groups. In each group you
> can easily run with fifo preemption - and even within one OS thread.
> 
> Think about it: If you have two tasks with close to the same period and
> one runs too long for the other to meets it's deadlines within fifo setup,
> you are bound to be very close to the limits no matter which one you give
> the highest priority.

Sounds reasonable. We do do something similar. But we still use
different priorities with threads with the same period.  It's when the
real word priority comes in, and you forget the math.  We really do want
that nuclear power plant running even if the washing machine should run!

> 
> > Doug also mentioned that you really want to have every task with a
> > different priority, so it makes sense to have a lot of priorities.  I
> > can't remember why he said this, but I'm sure you and I can find out by
> > searching through his papers.
> > 
> 
> On the contrary. Especially if you have mutual exclustion. If you run two
> tasks at the same priority with fifo you don't hit congestion on you
> mutexes (between those two tasks at least). If you give one of them just
> one higher priority it will preempt the other. You thus risk congestion -
> which is an expensive thing. Thus by giving your tasks different
> priorities you risk that you system can't meet the deadlines due to the
> extra CPU used!!

I wont argue here.  I let my customers analyze the system and I just
write the code for them. I only make suggestions, and just do what I'm
told. You brought up some interesting points, and if I ever get time, I
will need to write some utilities to show the pros and cons of each
approach.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Steven Rostedt]

[snip]
>  static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
>  {
[snip]
> +	int x = 0;
> +	do {
> +		if (*addr)
> +			return __ffs(*addr) + x;
> +		addr++;
> +		if (x >= size)
> +			break;
> +		x += 32;
The 32 looks like it may be problamatic.  Is there any i386 64 bit
machines.  Or is hard coding 32 OK?

> +	} while (1);
> +	return x;
>  }
>  

Just in case, I've updated the patch to use (sizeof(*addr)<<3)

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Index: vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h
===================================================================
--- vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	(revision 263)
+++ vanilla_kernel/include/asm-i386/bitops.h	(working copy)
@@ -311,6 +311,20 @@
 int find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, int size, int offset);
 
 /**
+ * __ffs - find first bit in word.
+ * @word: The word to search
+ *
+ * Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
+{
+	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
+		:"=r" (word)
+		:"rm" (word));
+	return word;
+}
+
+/**
  * find_first_bit - find the first set bit in a memory region
  * @addr: The address to start the search at
  * @size: The maximum size to search
@@ -320,22 +334,16 @@
  */
 static inline int find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned size)
 {
-	int d0, d1;
-	int res;
-
-	/* This looks at memory. Mark it volatile to tell gcc not to move it around */
-	__asm__ __volatile__(
-		"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
-		"repe; scasl\n\t"
-		"jz 1f\n\t"
-		"leal -4(%%edi),%%edi\n\t"
-		"bsfl (%%edi),%%eax\n"
-		"1:\tsubl %%ebx,%%edi\n\t"
-		"shll $3,%%edi\n\t"
-		"addl %%edi,%%eax"
-		:"=a" (res), "=&c" (d0), "=&D" (d1)
-		:"1" ((size + 31) >> 5), "2" (addr), "b" (addr) : "memory");
-	return res;
+	int x = 0;
+	do {
+		if (*addr)
+			return __ffs(*addr) + x;
+		addr++;
+		if (x >= size)
+			break;
+		x += (sizeof(*addr)<<3);
+	} while (1);
+	return x;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -360,20 +368,6 @@
 	return word;
 }
 
-/**
- * __ffs - find first bit in word.
- * @word: The word to search
- *
- * Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
- */
-static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
-{
-	__asm__("bsfl %1,%0"
-		:"=r" (word)
-		:"rm" (word));
-	return word;
-}
-
 /*
  * fls: find last bit set.
  */

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> In the thread "[RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> configurable" I discovered that a C version of find_first_bit is faster
> than the asm version now when compiled against gcc 3.3.6 and gcc 4.0.1
> (both from versions of Debian unstable).  I wrote a benchmark (attached)
> that runs the code 1,000,000 times.

I suspect the old "rep scas" has always been slower than 
compiler-generated code, at least under your test conditions. Many of the 
old asm's are actually _very_ old, and some of them come from pre-0.01 
days and are more about me learning the i386 (and gcc inline asm).

That said, I don't much like your benchmarking methodology. I suspect that 
quite often, the code in question runs from L2 cache, not in a tight loop, 
and so that "run a million times" approach is not necessarily the best 
one.

I'll apply this one as obvious: I doubt the compiler generates bigger code
or has any real downsides, but I just wanted to say that in general I just
wish people didn't always time the hot-cache case ;)

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> The 32 looks like it may be problamatic.  Is there any i386 64 bit
> machines.  Or is hard coding 32 OK?

We have BITS_PER_LONG exactly for this usage, but the sizeof also works. 

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 08:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> I suspect the old "rep scas" has always been slower than 
> compiler-generated code, at least under your test conditions. Many of the 
> old asm's are actually _very_ old, and some of them come from pre-0.01 
> days and are more about me learning the i386 (and gcc inline asm).

I've been playing with different approaches, (still all hot cache
though), and inspecting the generated code. It's not that the gcc
generated code is always better for the normal case. But since it sees
more and everything is not hidden in asm, it can optimise what is being
used, and how it's used.

> 
> That said, I don't much like your benchmarking methodology. I suspect that 
> quite often, the code in question runs from L2 cache, not in a tight loop, 
> and so that "run a million times" approach is not necessarily the best 
> one.

Well, I never said I was a test benchmark writer :-).  If you know of a
better way to benchmark these, then let me know.  I also thought that
having all in a hot cache could help with showing the differences.  But
I guess I would need to test this in other ways.
> 
> I'll apply this one as obvious: I doubt the compiler generates bigger code
> or has any real downsides, but I just wanted to say that in general I just
> wish people didn't always time the hot-cache case ;)

I've just finished a version of find_first_zero_bit too.  It has the
same comparisons as the find_first_bit but not as drastic. Do you want
this too, and if so, as a separate patch on top of the first one, or
against 2.6.12.2 (that's the kernel I'm working with right now) or do
you want me to submit a new patch with both changes?

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> I've been playing with different approaches, (still all hot cache
> though), and inspecting the generated code. It's not that the gcc
> generated code is always better for the normal case. But since it sees
> more and everything is not hidden in asm, it can optimise what is being
> used, and how it's used.

 Since you're considering GCC-generated code for ffs(), ffz() and friends, 
how about trying __builtin_ffs(), __builtin_clz() and __builtin_ctz() as 
apropriate?  Reasonably recent GCC may actually be good enough to use the 
fastest code depending on the processor submodel selected.

  Maciej

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 17:34 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

>  Since you're considering GCC-generated code for ffs(), ffz() and friends, 
> how about trying __builtin_ffs(), __builtin_clz() and __builtin_ctz() as 
> apropriate?  Reasonably recent GCC may actually be good enough to use the 
> fastest code depending on the processor submodel selected.

I can change the find_first_bit to use __builtin_ffs, but how would you
implement the ffz?  The clz and ctz only count the number of leading or
trailing zeros respectively, it doesn't find the first zero. Of course a
__builtin_ctz(~x) would but this might take longer than what we already
have.  I'll go ahead and try it and see.  But I still don't have a
decent benchmark on this. I'll start looking into the kernel and see how
it's used, and see if I can find a proper benchmark.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
>  Since you're considering GCC-generated code for ffs(), ffz() and friends, 
> how about trying __builtin_ffs(), __builtin_clz() and __builtin_ctz() as 
> apropriate?

Please don't. Try again in three years when everybody has them.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> I can change the find_first_bit to use __builtin_ffs, but how would you
> implement the ffz?

The thing is, there are basically _zero_ upsides to using the __builtin_xx 
functions on x86.

There may be more upsides on other architectures (*cough*ia64*cough*) that 
have strange scheduling issues and other complexities, but on x86 in 
particular, the __builtin_xxx() functions tend to be a lot more pain than 
they are worth. Not only do they have strange limitations (on selection of 
opcodes but also for compiler versions), but they aren't well documented, 
and semantics aren't clear.

For example, if you use the "bsfl" inline assembly instruction, you know 
what the semantics are and what the generated code is like: Intel 
documents it, and you know what code you generated. So the special cases 
like "what happens if the input is zero" are well-defined.

In contrast, the gcc builtins probably match some standard that is not 
only harder to find, but also has some _other_ definition for what happens 
for the zero case, so the builtins automatically end up having problems 
due to semantic mis-match between the CPU and the standard.

Basic rule: inline assembly is _better_ than random compiler extensions. 
It's better to have _one_ well-documented extension that is very generic 
than it is to have a thousand specialized extensions.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Mitchell Blank Jr]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> In the thread "[RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO
> configurable" I discovered that a C version of find_first_bit is faster
> than the asm version

There are probably other cases of this in asm-i386/bitopts.h.  For instance
I think the "btl" instruction is pretty slow on modern CPUs so
constant_test_bit() will probably outperform variable_test_bit() even if
you feed it a non-constant "nr".  I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though :-)

When testing these optimizations you should also probably check the resulting
vmlinux size.

-Mitch

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 17:34 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > I've been playing with different approaches, (still all hot cache
> > though), and inspecting the generated code. It's not that the gcc
> > generated code is always better for the normal case. But since it sees
> > more and everything is not hidden in asm, it can optimise what is being
> > used, and how it's used.
> 
>  Since you're considering GCC-generated code for ffs(), ffz() and friends, 
> how about trying __builtin_ffs(), __builtin_clz() and __builtin_ctz() as 
> apropriate?  Reasonably recent GCC may actually be good enough to use the 
> fastest code depending on the processor submodel selected.
> 

OK, I guess when I get some time, I'll start testing all the i386 bitop
functions, comparing the asm with the gcc versions.  Now could someone
explain to me what's wrong with testing hot cache code. Can one
instruction retrieve from memory better than others?  I was trying to
see which whas slower in CPU, but if an algorithm aligns with the cache
or something that is faster, my hot cache testing will not catch that.
But I don't know how to write a test that would test over and over again
something that is not in cache.  It would seem that I would have to find
a way to flush the L1 and L2 cache each time. But it still seems to be
adding too many variables to the equation to get good meaningful
benchmarks.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> OK, I guess when I get some time, I'll start testing all the i386 bitop
> functions, comparing the asm with the gcc versions.  Now could someone
> explain to me what's wrong with testing hot cache code. Can one
> instruction retrieve from memory better than others?

There's a few issues:

 - trivially: code/data size. Being smaller automatically means faster if
   you're cold-cache. If you do cycle tweaking of something that is 
   possibly commonly in the L2 cache or further away, you migt as well
   consider one byte of code-space to be equivalent to one cycle (a L1 I$ 
   miss can easily take 50+ cycles - the L1 fill cost may be just a small 
   part of that, but the pipeline problem it causes can be deadly).

 - branch prediction: cold-cache is _different_ from hot-cache. hit-cache 
   predicts the stuff dynamically, cold-cache has different rules (and it 
   is _usually_ "forward predicts not-taken, backwards predicts taken", 
   although you can add static hints if you want to on most architectures).

   So hot-cache may look very different indeed - the "normal" case might 
   be that you mispredict all the time because the static prediction is 
   wrong, but then a hot-cache benchmark will predict perfectly.

 - access patterns. This only matters if you look at algorithmic changes. 
   Hashes have atrocious locality, but on the other hand, if you know that 
   the access pattern is cold, a hash will often have a minimum number of 
   accesses. 

but no, you don't have "some instructions are better at reading from 
memory" for regular integer code (FP often has other issues, like reading 
directly from L2 without polluting L1, and then there are obviously 
prefetch hints).

Now, in the case of your "rep scas" conversion, the reason I applied it
was that it was obviously a clear win (rep scas is known bad, and has
register allocation issues too), so I'm _not_ claiming that the above
issues were true in that case. I just wanted to say that in general it's 
nice (but often quite hard) if you can give cold-cache numbers too (for 
example, using the cycle counter and being clever can actually give that).

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 10:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Basic rule: inline assembly is _better_ than random compiler extensions. 
> It's better to have _one_ well-documented extension that is very generic 
> than it is to have a thousand specialized extensions.

Counterexample: FR-V and its __builtin_read8() et al. For FR-V you have
to issue a memory barrier before or after certain I/O instructions, but
in some circumstances you can omit them. The compiler knows this and can
omit the membar instructions as appropriate -- but doing the same
optimisations in inline assembly would be fairly much impossible.

Builtins can also allow the compiler more visibility into what's going
on and more opportunity to optimise. They can also set condition
registers, which you can't do from inline assembly -- if you want to
perform a test in inline asm, you have to put the result in a register
and then test the contents of that register. (You can't just branch from
the inline asm either, although we used to try).

Builtins are more portable and their implementation will improve to
match developments in the target CPU. Inline assembly, as we have seen,
remains the same for years while the technology moves on.

Although it's often the case that inline assembly _is_ better,
especially in code which is arch-specific in the first place, I wouldn't
necessarily assume that it's always the case.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> There may be more upsides on other architectures (*cough*ia64*cough*) that 
> have strange scheduling issues and other complexities, but on x86 in 
> particular, the __builtin_xxx() functions tend to be a lot more pain than 
> they are worth. Not only do they have strange limitations (on selection of 

 They can be buggy, sure, just like any code.  If they indeed are we may 
want to avoid them rather than requiring a GCC upgrade, of course.

> opcodes but also for compiler versions), but they aren't well documented, 
> and semantics aren't clear.

 Hmm, that's what's in the GCC info pages for the relevant functions 
(I've omitted the "l" and "ll" variants):

"-- Built-in Function: int __builtin_ffs (unsigned int x)
     Returns one plus the index of the least significant 1-bit of X, or
     if X is zero, returns zero.

 -- Built-in Function: int __builtin_clz (unsigned int x)
     Returns the number of leading 0-bits in X, starting at the most
     significant bit position.  If X is 0, the result is undefined.

 -- Built-in Function: int __builtin_ctz (unsigned int x)
     Returns the number of trailing 0-bits in X, starting at the least
     significant bit position.  If X is 0, the result is undefined."

If that's not enough, then what would be?  I'm serious -- if you find it 
inadequate, then perhaps it could be improved.

> In contrast, the gcc builtins probably match some standard that is not 
> only harder to find, but also has some _other_ definition for what happens 
> for the zero case, so the builtins automatically end up having problems 
> due to semantic mis-match between the CPU and the standard.

 GCC should know the semantics of underlying CPU instructions used and be 
able to optimize expressions for common cases, e.g. like:

	return x == 0 ? 32 : __builtin_ctz(x);

when the CPU provides a "ctz" operation that returns 32 for 0.

> Basic rule: inline assembly is _better_ than random compiler extensions. 
> It's better to have _one_ well-documented extension that is very generic 
> than it is to have a thousand specialized extensions.

 It depends on how many submodel-specific variants of inline assembly you 
need, how many reloads are required for constraints, possibly defeating 
the gain, etc.

 In this particular case "bsf" and "bsr" are notoriously slow for some 
i386 submodels, so using the generic O(log n) algorithm may result in 
better performance for them.  E.g. the execution time for "bsf" for the 
original i386 is 11 + 3n clock ticks (n refers to the resulting bit 
index), "bsr" for the i486 is 7 - 104 ticks (so again 3n), for Pentium -- 
7 - 72 ticks (2n, then).  It does not immediately mean they are worse, but 
they are slow enough for the pessimistic case checking alternatives is not 
unreasonable.

  Maciej

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:

> Builtins are more portable and their implementation will improve to
> match developments in the target CPU. Inline assembly, as we have seen,
> remains the same for years while the technology moves on.
> 
> Although it's often the case that inline assembly _is_ better,
> especially in code which is arch-specific in the first place, I wouldn't
> necessarily assume that it's always the case.

 Well, if some inline assembly is found to be better, then perhaps it 
should be contributed (not necessarily as is, but as a concept) to GCC for 
improvement.

  Maciej

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >  Since you're considering GCC-generated code for ffs(), ffz() and friends, 
> > how about trying __builtin_ffs(), __builtin_clz() and __builtin_ctz() as 
> > apropriate?
> 
> Please don't. Try again in three years when everybody has them.

 Well, __builtin_ffs() has been there since at least gcc 2.95.  The two 
others are quite recent, indeed -- apparently only since GCC 3.4.  They 
may still be considered to be used conditionally if there is justified 
benefit.

  Maciej

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 10:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Basic rule: inline assembly is _better_ than random compiler extensions. 
> > It's better to have _one_ well-documented extension that is very generic 
> > than it is to have a thousand specialized extensions.
> 
> Counterexample: FR-V and its __builtin_read8() et al.

There are arguably always counter-examples, but your arguments really are 
pretty theoretical.

Very seldom does compiler extensions end up being (a) timely enough and 
(b) semantically close enough to be really useful.

> Builtins can also allow the compiler more visibility into what's going
> on and more opportunity to optimise.

Absolutely. In theory. In practice, not so much. All the opportunity to 
optimize often ends up being lost in semantic clashes, or just because 
people can't use the extension because it hasn't been there since day one.

The fact is, inline asms are pretty rare even when we are talking about
every single possible assembly combination. They are even less common when
we're talking about just _one_ specific case of them (like something like
__builtin_ffs()).

What does this mean? It has two results: (a) instruction-level scheduling 
and register allocation just isn't _that_ important, and the generic "asm" 
register scheduling is really plenty good enough. The fact that in theory 
you might get better results if the compiler knew exactly what was going 
on is just not relevant: in practice it's simply not _true_. The other 
result is: (b) the compiler people don't end up seeing something like the 
esoteric builtins as a primary thing, so it's not like they'd be tweaking 
and regression-testing everything _anyway_.

So I argue very strongly that __builtin_xxx() is _wrong_, unless you have 
very very strong reasons for it:

 - truly generic and _very_ important stuff: __builtin_memcpy() is
   actually very much worth it, since it's all over, and it's so generic 
   that the compiler has a lot of choice in how to do it.

 - stuff where the architecture (or the compiler) -really- sucks with
   inline asms, and has serious problems, and the thing is really 
   important. Your FR-V example _might_ fall into this category (or it 
   might not), and ia64 has the problem with instruction packing and
   scheduling and so __builtin's have a bigger advantage.

Basically, on most normal architectures, there's seldom any reason at
_all_ to use builtins except for things like memcpy. On x86, I think the
counter-example might be if you want to schedule MMX code from C - which
is a special case because it doesn't follow my "rule (a)" above. But we 
don't do that in the kernel, really, or we just schedule it out-of-line.

			Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
>  Hmm, that's what's in the GCC info pages for the relevant functions 
> (I've omitted the "l" and "ll" variants):
> 
> "-- Built-in Function: int __builtin_ffs (unsigned int x)
>      Returns one plus the index of the least significant 1-bit of X, or
>      if X is zero, returns zero.

This, for example, clashes with the x86 semantics.

If X is zero, the bsfl instruction will set the ZF flag, and the result is 
undefined (on many, but not all, CPU's it will either be zero _or_ 
unmodified).

We don't care, since we actually test the input for being zero separately
_anyway_, but my point is that if the builtin is badly done (and I
wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was), then it's going to do a
totally unnecessary conditional jump of cmov.

See? __builtin's can generate _worse_ code, exactly because they try to 
have portable semantics that may not even matter.

In contrast, just doing it by hand allows us to avoid all that crap.

Doing it by hand as inline assembly also allows us to do dynamic 
optimizations like instruction rewriting, so inline assembly is a _lot_ 
more powerful than builtins can reasonably ever be.

> If that's not enough, then what would be?  I'm serious -- if you find it 
> inadequate, then perhaps it could be improved.

It's inadequate because IT IS POINTLESS.

The builtin buys you absolutely _nothing_, and the inline asm is simpler, 
potentially faster, and works with every single version of gcc. 

USING THE BUILTIN IS A PESSIMISATION!

It has absolutely _zero_ upsides, and I've named three _major_ downsides.

It has another downside too: it's extra complexity and potential for bugs 
in the compiler. And if you tell me gcc people never have bugs, I will 
laugh in your general direction.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] speed up on find_first_bit for i386 (let compiler do the work)

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> It has another downside too: it's extra complexity and potential for bugs 
> in the compiler. And if you tell me gcc people never have bugs, I will 
> laugh in your general direction.

 You mean these that have been sitting in their Bugzilla for some three 
years with no resolution and only occasional scratching of heads? ;-)

  Maciej