> the communication between kernel and user-space is going to add some overhead,
What does this look like specifically? Is it that the kernel operation needs to copy memory that is in "kernel space" to/from "user space" for security reasons? Is that all?
Making scheduling decisions requires information that only the kernel has (for starts, what processes are even running). Since userspace programs can't read kernel memory, you have to copy this information into their process before they can work.
Would be interesting to see how minimal they could make the overhead, since that's one of their goals. I wonder what the lower limit might be. That would have broad implications for basically everything else in userspace.
Ah, the dream of fully-featured, performant M:N threading. Spawn tasks left and right, optimize with a small declarative config, and sit back and relax. I'm very interested to see how close we can get.
Making scheduling decisions optimally requires information only held on each side of the kernel/user space divide. An application knows things about its own operation that the kernel cannot. The kernel knows things about the state of the system that user space cannot.
Hence the "scheduler activations" concept from the early 1990s, in which the kernel calls into user space with sufficient information for a user space scheduler to make the best possible decision (in theory).
I believe I saw a presentation on OKL4 describing this sort of abstraction as virtual CPUs capabilities. There is a similar mechanism in Barrelfish and Psyche. Last I heard, the seL4 team was pursuing a different approach of scheduling capabilities.
I think we still haven't realized the optimal design, but these are probably good local maxima and points for further exploration.
In the 90s, the cost of choosing the wrong thread to run when another thread blocked was significant in specific kinds of applications.
Since then, the cost has (in absolute terms) gone down, the number of applications for which this is true has not really increased.
In addition, there has been some expansion in the number of applications for which SCHED_RT and SCHED_FIFO are appropriate for at least some threads (financial services high speed trading, real time audio), which has also reduced the pressure for a user-space scheduler that "gets it right". This is also true for designs which require guaranteed scheduling slots.
So, SA might still bring some benefits to large, highly-threaded monolithic apps such as RDBMS, but it doesn't really provide much to the majority of contemporary applications. It certainly doesn't do much for mobile environments, which tend not to run applications where "the application knows best".
Makes sense. Ideally the OS should provide the capability to do SA (or similar), but I don't know how the overhead would be for programs that opt out of using it.
That seems unlikely. The dimensions of the problem space are huge and getting larger. Although the next Linux kernel scheduler I write will be my first, it's not hard to infer the increase in complexity due to the evolution of CPUs that Linux runs on: "efficiency" cores (now on AMD devices as well), multi-chip modules creating cache locality problems, critical power and thermal management requirements on high power/current devices — all changing concurrently.
There certainly isn't one concrete scheduler that works for all workloads. It probably doesn't matter for server or supercomputer environments; as long as some scheduler works, it doesn't have to change. For other use cases, the scheduler should be flexible with throughput and fairness. Priority, resource usage, realtime, but more cohesive. Tuning the scheduler might be harder in such a design, but it should allow for users to not need to switch to a different base entirely.
It'd be more of a scheduler framework that can be used to support various workloads dynamically.
Implicit in all this is the idea that if you do not get the scheduler behaving optimally that it will make a difference sufficient that we can call it a "failure".
That's what I'm questioning. Precisely because the dimensions of the problem space have increased, and the raw performance of everything except register save/restore and TLB invalidation has increased, there's wide latitude for scheduling algorithms that are "not quite right".
If I’m reading the page correctly, at the end is this:
> while the communication of tasks happen using the bpf() syscall, accessing the queued and dispatched maps.
> NOTE: we could make this part more efficient by using eBPF ring buffers, this would allow direct access to the maps without using a syscall (there’s an ongoing work on this - patches are welcome if you want to contribute).
The kernel piece needs to produce information that the user space consumes and it doesn’t use a 0-copy ring buffer yet.
He’s referring to the syscalls necessary to share data back and forth with eBPF. These are wrapped in userspace libraries, eg libbpf.c. Data is shared with the kernel in buffers which in eBPF parlance are referred to as “maps”, which are basically key/value pairs accessed via a file descriptor. There’s a lot of docs on eBPF if you are curious: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/bpf/index.html
Of all the things a you can run in userspace, the scheduler is the one that I never thought would happen. I guess the scheduler has to give itself time to run in userspace? It seems like there would be a chicken and egg problem at boot time before userspace is brought up. Would be pretty embarrassing if your scheduler got killed by a OOM or something.
You could make the kernel treat the scheduler specially (just like today it already treats PID 1 specially) by always making the scheduler run whenever the kernel doesn't know what to run next.
Happens all the time with the userspace async stuff, swapcontext(3), freebsd n:m threads, greenthreads, stackless py, it's all ancient, and they're all userspace schedulers.
I think SA takes it a bit too far though. Even if it looks like a 'logical progression of them older ideas.'
You memlock everything, so OOM's not a problem, per se. You need to allocate a bunch up front though. If your program does not handle allocations failing it'll panic (Rust term) and switch back to the kernel's normal scheduler.
People put a lot of time into thinking and researching this sort of thing. It even made it into Solaris. For one reason or another (possibly a lack of sufficient hardware parallelism) it never really gained much traction.
Another critical issue to solve is that to do this "properly" (at least based on our model of this from the 90s), you have to have a re-entrant context switch routine, which is an interesting challenge.
my understanding was that schedule activations are really an upcall mechanism thats allows a userspace scheduler to manage its own threads (green) more effectively and provide more robust support for asynchrony across the user/kernel boundary.
isn't this is more of a extreme micro/exo thing where the monolithic scheduler is herniated out into userspace?
Not "green" threads. Full kernel threads (otherwise it doesn't make much sense).
And yes, this is a more extreme thing, but what's the point unless there's some capability in user space that can't exist in the kernel? And what would that thing be? Application-specific knowledge allowing better scheduling decisions to be made.
Can you elaborate on what it means for them to be kernel threads as opposed to green threads (no userspace control over when it blocks and yields?) and reentrant context switch routines? I read the original paper but I fear I don't have enough background to fully appreciate it.
Scheduler activations is a design that involves calling back up into the user space scheduler whenever the kernel decides to:
1. block a thread AND
2. allow the task that owns the thread to retain use of the CPU
so when a thread (in user space) calls write, it ends up in the kernel, and the kernel in a traditional design would put the thread to sleep waiting on the write, invoke the scheduler to decide what should run next.
With SA, the kernel first assesses whether the task can continue to use the CPU, and if so, calls the task's user-space scheduler so that it can decide which thread to run (since the user-space scheduler has better information about this).
Green threads are unknown to the kernel, they play no role in such a design.
Reentrant context switching is required because you can be in the middle of a context switch invoked from the user space scheduler when a h/w interrupt (incl. timers) causes the kernel to rethink what is going and rip the CPU away from the task.
Reentrancy is a nuisance. seL4 allows for the kernel to be preempted only at specific points of long running operations, which massively reduces concurrent spaghetti but also sacrifices some latency. Would the userspace program have some way of knowing about global resource contention to avoid choosing a thread suboptimally? As I understand it, SA by itself only allows userspace programs to manage their own resources efficiently.
No, the kernel gets to do it's job: decide which task ("process" in classical Unix speak) should get the core based on kernel-side scheduling policies, then the task itself gets to decide which thread should run on the core.
The amount of information required to correctly decide which task should get the core is too large to sensibly move across the kernel boundary, and providing read-access to it in a safe way from user space is problematic.
Perhaps not just any program, but ideally a user could tell the OS that a certain program requires minimal latency across some cores for some duration, or that hardware TCP offload should be prioritized for a server process. Like madvise or fadvise to give the kernel suggestions for optimization, but broader.
For some *nixes that already exists. But it is insufficent to provide the OS with information like "if thread N blocks for I/O, run thread T instead", particularly because in the next quantum, it might be "run thread Y instead".
I'm wondering if this scheduler is for something like user-space threads. And What is the relationship between such scheduler and go runtime for goroutine and JVM for Java virtual thread?
In this example, the kernel is doing the task switching. They are "real" threads. The userspace component is informing the kernel which tasks should be run.
goroutines and Java virtual threads are a separate idea. The application saves its state and then yields back to a scheduler in the application.
EBPF has strict limitations, like 512-byte stack and 1M instructions, that would make it inapplicable to a lot of programs. It's intentionally not Turing complete.
While eBPF aims to minimize context switches and provide efficient in-kernel execution, there might still be scenarios where context switches are unavoidable. For example, interactions with user-space applications or handling specific events may require transitioning between user and kernel space. However, the goal is to keep such transitions to a minimum and leverage the advantages of eBPF's in-kernel execution model
Are we getting to the point where parts of the kernel could benefit from running on a low power, cheap, less featureful CPU/co-processor, so that the beefy, suped up, SIMD, floating point instructioned super cores can be dedicated to rendering cat videos and sending IMs?
44 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 95.5 ms ] threadWhat does this look like specifically? Is it that the kernel operation needs to copy memory that is in "kernel space" to/from "user space" for security reasons? Is that all?
Hence the "scheduler activations" concept from the early 1990s, in which the kernel calls into user space with sufficient information for a user space scheduler to make the best possible decision (in theory).
I think we still haven't realized the optimal design, but these are probably good local maxima and points for further exploration.
Since then, the cost has (in absolute terms) gone down, the number of applications for which this is true has not really increased.
In addition, there has been some expansion in the number of applications for which SCHED_RT and SCHED_FIFO are appropriate for at least some threads (financial services high speed trading, real time audio), which has also reduced the pressure for a user-space scheduler that "gets it right". This is also true for designs which require guaranteed scheduling slots.
So, SA might still bring some benefits to large, highly-threaded monolithic apps such as RDBMS, but it doesn't really provide much to the majority of contemporary applications. It certainly doesn't do much for mobile environments, which tend not to run applications where "the application knows best".
It'd be more of a scheduler framework that can be used to support various workloads dynamically.
That's what I'm questioning. Precisely because the dimensions of the problem space have increased, and the raw performance of everything except register save/restore and TLB invalidation has increased, there's wide latitude for scheduling algorithms that are "not quite right".
> while the communication of tasks happen using the bpf() syscall, accessing the queued and dispatched maps.
> NOTE: we could make this part more efficient by using eBPF ring buffers, this would allow direct access to the maps without using a syscall (there’s an ongoing work on this - patches are welcome if you want to contribute).
The kernel piece needs to produce information that the user space consumes and it doesn’t use a 0-copy ring buffer yet.
Or if you starved your scheduler process because it wasn't high enough priority :/
I think SA takes it a bit too far though. Even if it looks like a 'logical progression of them older ideas.'
"Scheduler activations: effective kernel support for the user-level management of parallelism" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/121132.121151
and also:
"Adding Scheduler Activations to Mach 3.0" https://dada.cs.washington.edu/research/tr/1992/08/UW-CSE-92...
People put a lot of time into thinking and researching this sort of thing. It even made it into Solaris. For one reason or another (possibly a lack of sufficient hardware parallelism) it never really gained much traction.
Another critical issue to solve is that to do this "properly" (at least based on our model of this from the 90s), you have to have a re-entrant context switch routine, which is an interesting challenge.
isn't this is more of a extreme micro/exo thing where the monolithic scheduler is herniated out into userspace?
And yes, this is a more extreme thing, but what's the point unless there's some capability in user space that can't exist in the kernel? And what would that thing be? Application-specific knowledge allowing better scheduling decisions to be made.
With SA, the kernel first assesses whether the task can continue to use the CPU, and if so, calls the task's user-space scheduler so that it can decide which thread to run (since the user-space scheduler has better information about this).
Green threads are unknown to the kernel, they play no role in such a design.
Reentrant context switching is required because you can be in the middle of a context switch invoked from the user space scheduler when a h/w interrupt (incl. timers) causes the kernel to rethink what is going and rip the CPU away from the task.
The amount of information required to correctly decide which task should get the core is too large to sensibly move across the kernel boundary, and providing read-access to it in a safe way from user space is problematic.
The kernel interface that the article uses (called sched_ext) is the result of the attempts to mainstream the Google thing.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXuZi9aeGTw
SA means upcalling to user-space when thread scheduling is required.
sched_ext means loading a scheduler (coded in BPF) into the kernel.
Not dissimilar goals/purposes but wildly different systems.
goroutines and Java virtual threads are a separate idea. The application saves its state and then yields back to a scheduler in the application.
Also, because context switches are good?
Because kernel scheduling has context and different architectures must be considered etc.