I have this code:
let k = time::Instant::now();
thread::sleep(time::Duration::from_micros(10));
let elapsed = k.elapsed().as_micros();
println!("{}", elapsed);
My output is always somewhere between 70 and 90. I expect it to be 10, why is this number 7x higher?
This actually doesn't really have anything to do with Rust.
On a typical multi-processing, user-interactive operating system (i.e., every consumer OS you've used), your thread isn't special. It's one among many, and the CPUs need to be shared.
You operating system has a component called a scheduler, whose job it is to share the hardware resources. It will boot off your thread off the CPU quite often. This typically happens:
On every system call
Every time an interrupt hits the CPU
When the scheduler kicks you off to give other processes/threads a chance (this is called preemption, and typically happens 10s of times a second)
Thus, your userland process can't possibly do anything timing-related with such fine precision.
There's several solution paths you can explore:
Increase the amount of CPU your operating system gives you. Some ideas:
Increase the process' priortiy
Pin the thread to a particular CPU core, to give it exclusive use (this means you lose throughput, because if your thread is idle, no other thread's work can borrow that CPU)
Switch to a real-time operating system which makes guarantees about latency and timing.
Offload the work to some hardware that's specialized to do with, without the involvement of your process.
E.g. offload sine wave generation to a hardware sound-card, WiFi radio processing to a radio controller, etc.
Use your own micro controller to do the real-time stuff, and communicate to it over something like I2C or SPI.
In your case of running some simple code on a userland process, I think your easiest bet is to just pin your process. Your existing code will work as-is, you'll just lose the throughput of one of your cores (but luckily, you haven multiple).
Related
I read that Linux kernel is preemptive, which is different from most Unix kernels. So, what does it really mean for a kernal to be preemptive?
Some analogies or examples would be better than pure theoretical explanation.
ADD 1 -- 11:00 AM 12/7/2018
Preemptive is just one paradigm of multi-tasking. There are others like Cooperative Multi-tasking. A better understanding can be achieved by comparing them.
Prior to Linux kernel version 2.5.4, Linux Kernel was not preemptive which means a process running in kernel mode cannot be moved out of processor until it itself leaves the processor or it starts waiting for some input output operation to get complete.
Generally a process in user mode can enter into kernel mode using system calls. Previously when the kernel was non-preemptive, a lower priority process could priority invert a higher priority process by denying it access to the processor by repeatedly calling system calls and remaining in the kernel mode. Even if the lower priority process' timeslice expired, it would continue running until it completed its work in the kernel or voluntarily relinquished control. If the higher priority process waiting to run is a text editor in which the user is typing or an MP3 player ready to refill its audio buffer, the result is poor interactive performance. This way non-preemptive kernel was a major drawback at that time.
Imagine the simple view of preemptive multi-tasking. We have two user tasks, both of which are running all the time without using any I/O or performing kernel calls. Those two tasks don't have to do anything special to be able to run on a multi-tasking operating system. The kernel, typically based on a timer interrupt, simply decides that it's time for one task to pause to let another one run. The task in question is completely unaware that anything happened.
However, most tasks make occasional requests of the kernel via syscalls. When this happens, the same user context exists, but the CPU is running kernel code on behalf of that task.
Older Linux kernels would never allow preemption of a task while it was busy running kernel code. (Note that I/O operations always voluntarily re-schedule. I'm talking about a case where the kernel code has some CPU-intensive operation like sorting a list.)
If the system allows that task to be preempted while it is running kernel code, then we have what is called a "preemptive kernel." Such a system is immune to unpredictable delays that can be encountered during syscalls, so it might be better suited for embedded or real-time tasks.
For example, if on a particular CPU there are two tasks available, and one takes a syscall that takes 5ms to complete, and the other is an MP3 player application that needs to feed the audio pipe every 2ms, you might hear stuttering audio.
The argument against preemption is that all kernel code that might be called in task context must be able to survive preemption-- there's a lot of poor device driver code, for example, that might be better off if it's always able to complete an operation before allowing some other task to run on that processor. (With multi-processor systems the rule rather than the exception these days, all kernel code must be re-entrant, so that argument isn't as relevant today.) Additionally, if the same goal could be met by improving the syscalls with bad latency, perhaps preemption is unnecessary.
A compromise is CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, which allows a task-switch at certain points inside the kernel, but not everywhere. If there are only a small number of places where kernel code might get bogged down, this is a cheap way of reducing latency while keeping the complexity manageable.
Traditional unix kernels had a single lock, which was held by a thread while kernel code was running. Therefore no other kernel code could interrupt that thread.
This made designing the kernel easier, since you knew that while one thread using kernel resources, no other thread was. Therefore the different threads cannot mess up each others work.
In single processor systems this doesn't cause too many problems.
However in multiprocessor systems, you could have a situation where several threads on different processors or cores all wanted to run kernel code at the same time. This means that depending on the type of workload, you could have lots of processors, but all of them spend most of their time waiting for each other.
In Linux 2.6, the kernel resources were divided up into much smaller units, protected by individual locks, and the kernel code was reviewed to make sure that locks were only held while the corresponding resources were in use. So now different processors only have to wait for each other if they want access to the same resource (for example hardware resource).
The preemption allows the kernel to give the IMPRESSION of parallelism: you've got only one processor (let's say a decade ago), but you feel like all your processes are running simulaneously. That's because the kernel preempts (ie, take the execution out of) the execution from one process to give it to the next one (maybe according to their priority).
EDIT Not preemptive kernels wait for processes to give back the hand (ie, during syscalls), so if your process computes a lot of data and doesn't call any kind of yield function, the other processes won't be able to execute to execute their calls. Such systems are said to be cooperative because they ask for the cooperation of the processes to ensure the equity of the execution time
EDIT 2 The main goal of preemption is to improve the reactivity of the system among multiple tasks, so that's good for end-users, whereas on the other-hand, servers want to achieve the highest througput, so they don't need it: (from the Linux kernel configuration)
Preemptible kernel (low-latency desktop)
Voluntary kernel preemption (desktop)
No forced preemption (server)
The linux kernel is monolithic and give a little computing timespan to all the running process sequentially. It means that the processes (eg. the programs) do not run concurrently, but they are given a give timespan regularly to execute their logic. The main problem is that some logic can take longer to terminate and prevent the kernel to allow time for the next process. This results in system "lags".
A preemtive kernel has the ability to switch context. It means that it can stop a "hanging" process even if it is not finished, and give the computing time to the next process as expected. The "hanging" process will continue to execute when its time has come without any problem.
Practically, it means that the kernel has the ability to achieve tasks in realtime, which is particularly interesting for audio recording and editing.
The ubuntu studio districution packages a preemptive kernel as well as a buch of quality free software devoted to audio and video edition.
It means that the operating system scheduler is free to suspend the execution of the running processes to give the CPU to another process whenever it wants; the normal way to do this is to give to each process that is waiting for the CPU a "quantum" of CPU time to run. After it has expired the scheduler takes back the control (and the running process cannot avoid this) to give another quantum to another process.
This method is often compared with the cooperative multitasking, in which processes keep the CPU for all the time they need, without being interrupted, and to let other applications run they have to call explicitly some kind of "yield" function; naturally, to avoid giving the feeling of the system being stuck, well-behaved applications will yield the CPU often. Still,if there's a bug in an application (e.g. an infinite loop without yield calls) the whole system will hang, since the CPU is completely kept by the faulty program.
Almost all recent desktop OSes use preemptive multitasking, that, even if it's more expensive in terms of resources, is in general more stable (it's more difficult for a sigle faulty app to hang the whole system, since the OS is always in control). On the other hand, when the resources are tight and the application are expected to be well-behaved, cooperative multitasking is used. Windows 3 was a cooperative multitasking OS; a more recent example can be RockBox, an opensource PMP firmware replacement.
I think everyone did a good job of explaining this but I'm just gonna add little more info. in context of Linux IRQ, interrupt and kernel scheduler.
Process scheduler is the component of the OS that is responsible for deciding if current running job/process should continue to run and if not which process should run next.
preemptive scheduler is a scheduler which allows to be interrupted and a running process then can change it's state and then let another process to run (since the current one was interrupted).
On the other hand, non-preemptive scheduler can't take away CPU away from a process (aka cooperative)
FYI, the name word "cooperative" can be confusing because the word's meaning does not clearly indicate what scheduler actually does.
For example, Older Windows like 3.1 had cooperative schedulers.
Full credit to wonderful article here
I think it became preemptive from 2.6. preemptive means when a new process is ready to run, the cpu will be allocated to the new process, it doesn't need the running process be co-operative and give up the cpu.
Linux kernel is preemptive means that The kernel supports preemption.
For example, there are two processes P1(higher priority) and P2(lower priority) which are doing read system calls and they are running in kernel mode. Suppose P2 is running and is in the kernel mode and P2 is scheduled to run.
If kernel preemption is available, then preemption can happen at the kernel level i.e P2 can get preempted and but to sleep and the P1 can continue to run.
If kernel preemption is not available, since P2 is in kernel mode, system simply waits till P2 is complete and then
I know that threads cannot actually run in parallel on the same core, but in a regular desktop system there is normally hundreds or even thousands of threads. Which is of course much more than today's average of 4 core CPU's. So the system actually running some thread for X time and then switches to run another thread for Y amount of time an so on.
My question is, how does the system decide how much time to execute each thread?
I know that when a program is calling sleep() on a thread for an amount of time, the operation system can use this time to execute other threads, but what happens when a program does not call sleep at all?
E.g:
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
while(true)
printf("busy");
return 0;
}
When does the operating system decide to suspend this thread and excutre another?
The OS keeps a container of all those threads that can use CPU execution, (usually such threads are described as being'ready'). On most desktop systems, this is a very small fraction of the total number of threads. Most threads in such systems are waiting on either I/O, (this includes sleeping - waiting on timer I/O), or inter-thread signaling; such threads cannot use CPU execution and so the OS does not dispatch them onto cores.
A software syscall, (eg. a request to open a file, a request to sleep or wait for a signal from another thread), or a hardware interrupt from a peripheral device, (eg. a disk controller, NIC, KB, mouse), may cause the set of ready threads to change and so initiate a scheduling run.
When run, the shceduler decides on what set of ready threads to assign to the available cores. The algorithm it uses is a compromise that tries to optimize overall performance by balancing the need for expensive context-switches with the need for responsive I/O. The kernel CAN stop any thread on any core an preempt it, but it would surely prefer not to:)
So:
My question is, how does the system decide how much time to execute
each thread?
Essentially, it does not. If the set of ready threads is not greater than the number of cores, there is no need to stop/control/influence a CPU-intensive loop - it can be allowed to run on forever, taking up a whole core.
Note that your example is very poor - the printf() call will request output from the OS and, if not immediately available, the OS will block your seemingly 'CPU only' thread until it is.
but what happens when a program does not call sleep at all?
It's just one more thread. If it is purely CPU-intensive, then whether it runs continually depends upon the loading on the box and the number of cores available, as already described. It can, of course, get blocked by requesting I/O or electing to wait for a signal from another thread, so removing itself from the set of ready threads.
Note that one I/O device is a hardware timer. This is very useful for timing out system calls and providing Sleep() functionality. It usually does have a side-effect on those boxes where the number of ready threads is larger than the number of cores available to run them, (ie. the box is overloaded or the task/s it runs have no limits on CPU use). It can result in sharing out the available cores around the ready threads, so giving the illusion of running more threads than it's actually physically capable of, (try not to get hung up on Sleep() and the timer interrupt - it's one of many interrupts that can change thread state).
It is this behaviour of the timer hardware, interrupt and driver that gives rise to the apalling 'quantum', 'time-sharing', 'round-robin' etc. etc.etc. confusion and FUD that surrounds the operation of modern preemptive kernels.
A preemptive kernel, and it's drivers etc, is a state-machine. Syscalls from running threads and hardware interrupts from peripheral devices go in, a set of running threads comes out.
It depends which type of scheduling your OS is using for example lets take
Round Robbin:
In order to schedule processes fairly, a round-robin scheduler generally employs time-sharing, giving each job a time slot or quantum(its allowance of CPU time), and interrupting the job if it is not completed by then. The job is resumed next time a time slot is assigned to that process. If the process terminates or changes its state to waiting during its attributed time quantum, the scheduler selects the first process in the ready queue to execute.
There are others scheduling algorithms as well you will find this link useful:https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/5_CPU_Scheduling.html
The operating system has a component called the scheduler that decides which thread should run and for how long. There are essentially two basic kinds of schedulers: cooperative and preemptive. Cooperative scheduling requires that the threads cooperate and regularly hand control back to the operating system, for example by doing some kind of IO. Most modern operating systems use preemptive scheduling.
In preemptive scheduling the operating system gives a time slice for the thread to run. The OS does this by setting a handler for a CPU timer: the CPU regularly runs a piece of code (the scheduler) that checks if the current thread's time slice is over, and possibly decides to give the next time slice to a thread that is waiting to run. The size of the time slice and how to choose the next thread depends on the operating system and the scheduling algorithm you use. When the OS switches to a new thread it saves the state of the CPU (register contents, program counter etc) for the current thread into main memory, and restores the state of the new thread - this is called a context switch.
If you want to know more, the Wikipedia article on Scheduling has lots of information and pointers to related topics.
There are a few things I don't quite understand when it come to scheduling:
I assume each process/thread, as long as it is CPU bound, is given a time window. Once the window is over, it's swapped out and another process/thread is ran. Is that assumption correct? Are there any ball park numbers how long that window is on a modern PC? I'm assuming around 100 ms? What's the overhead of swapping out like? A few milliseconds or so?
Does the OS schedule by procces or by an individual kernel thread? It would make more sense to schedule each process and within that time window run whatever threads that process has available. That way the process context switching is minimized. Is my understanding correct?
How does the time each thread runs compare to other system times, such as RAM access, network access, HD I/O etc?
If I'm reading a socket (blocking) my thread will get swapped out until data is available then a hardware interrupt will be triggered and the data will be moved to the RAM (either by the CPU or by the NIC if it supports DMA) . Am I correct to assume that the thread will not necessarily be swapped back in at that point to handle he incoming data?
I'm asking primarily about Linux, but I would imagine the info would also be applicable to Windows as well.
I realize it's a bunch of different questions, I'm trying to clear up my understanding on this topic.
I assume each process/thread, as long as it is CPU bound, is given a time window. Once the window is over, it's swapped out and another process/thread is ran. Is that assumption correct? Are there any ball park numbers how long that window is on a modern PC? I'm assuming around 100 ms? What's the overhead of swapping out like? A few milliseconds or so?
No. Pretty much all modern operating systems use pre-emption, allowing interactive processes that suddenly need to do work (because the user hit a key, data was read from the disk, or a network packet was received) to interrupt CPU bound tasks.
Does the OS schedule by proces or by an individual kernel thread? It would make more sense to schedule each process and within that time window run whatever threads that process has available. That way the process context switching is minimized. Is my understanding correct?
That's a complex optimization decision. The cost of blowing out the instruction and data caches is typically large compared to the cost of changing the address space, so this isn't as significant as you might think. Typically, picking which thread to schedule of all the ready-to-run threads is done first and process stickiness may be an optimization affecting which core to schedule on.
How does the time each thread runs compare to other system times, such as RAM access, network access, HD I/O etc?
Obviously, threads have to run through a very large number of RAM accesses because switching threads requires a large number of such accesses. Hard drive and network I/O are generally slow enough that a thread that's waiting for such a thing is descheduled.
Fast SSDs change things a bit. One thing I'm seeing a lot of lately is long-treasured optimizations that use a lot of CPU to try to avoid disk accesses can be worse than just doing the disk access on some modern machines!
I was reading this article, but my question is on a generic level, I was thinking along the following lines:
Can a kernel be called real time just because it has a real time scheduler? Or in other words, say I have a linux kernel, and if I change the default scheduler from O(1) or CFS to a real time scheduler, will it become an RTOS?
Does it require any support from the hardware? Generally I have seen embedded devices having an RTOS (eg VxWorks, QNX), do these have any special provisions/hw to support them? I know RTOS process's running time is deterministic, but then one can use longjump/setjump to get the output in determined time.
I'd really appreciate some input/insight on it, if I am wrong about something, please correct me.
After doing some research, talking to poeple (Jamie Hanrahan, Juha Aaltonen #linkedIn Group - Device Driver Experts) and ofcourse the input from #Jim Garrison, this what I can conclude:
In Jamie Hanrahan's words-
What makes a kernel real time?
The sine qua non of a real time OS -
The ability to guarantee a maximum latency between an external interrupt and the start of the interrupt handler.
Note that the maximum latency need not be particularly short (e.g. microseconds), you could have a real time OS that guaranteed an absolute maximum latency of 137 milliseconds.
A real time scheduler is one that offers completely predictable (to the developer) behavior of thread scheduling - "which thread runs next".
This is generally separate from the issue of a guaranteed maximum latency to responding to an interrupt (since interrupt handlers are not necessarily scheduled like ordinary threads) but it is often necessary to implement a real-time application. Schedulers in real-time OSs generally implement a large number of priority levels. And they almost always implement priority inheritance, to avoid priority inversion situations.
So, it is good to have a guaranteed latency for an interrupt and predictability of thread scheduling, then why not make every OS real time?
Because an OS suited for general purpose use (servers and/or desktops) needs to have characteristics that are generally at odds with real-time latency guarantees.
For example, a real-time scheduler should have completely predictable behavior. That means, among other things, that whatever priorities have been assigned to the various tasks by the developer should be left alone by the OS. This might mean that some low-priority tasks end up being starved for long periods of time. But the RT OS has to shrug and say "that's what the dev wanted." Note that to get the correct behavior, the RT system developer has to worry a lot about things like task priorities and CPU affinities.
A general-purpose OS is just the opposite. You want to be able to just throw apps and services on it, almost always things written by many different vendors (instead of being one tightly integrated system as in most R-T systems), and get good performance. Perhaps not the absolute best possible performance, but good.
Note that "good performance" is not just measured in interrupt latency. In particular, you want CPU and other resource allocations that are often described as "fair", without the user or admin or even the app developers having to worry much if at all about things like thread priorities and CPU affinities and NUMA nodes. One job might be more important than another, but in a general-purpose OS, that doesn't mean that the second job should get no resources at all.
So the general purpose OS will usually implement time-slicing among threads of equal priority, and it may adjust the priorities of threads according to their past behavior (e.g. a CPU hog might have its priority reduced; an I/O bound thread might have its priority increased, so it can keep the I/O devices working; a CPU-starved thread might have its priority boosted so it can get a little bit of CPU time now and then).
Can a kernel be called real time just because it has a real time scheduler?
No, an RT scheduler is a necessary component of an RT OS, but you also need predictable behavior in other parts of the OS.
Does it require any support from the hardware?
In general, the simpler the hardware the more predictable its behavior is. So PCI-E is less predictable than PCI, and PCI is less predictable than ISA, etc. There are specific I/O buses that were designed for (among other things) easy predictability of e.g. interrupt latency, but a lot of R-T requirements can be met these days with commodity hardware.
The specific description of real-time is that processes have minimum response time guarantees. This is often not sufficient for the application, and even less important than determinism. This is especially hard to achieve with modern feature rich OS's. Consider:
If I want to command some hardware or a machine at precise points in time, I need to be able to generate command signals at those specific moments, often with far sub millisecond accuracy. Generally if you compile let's say a C-code that runs a loop that waits for "half a millisecond" and does something, the wait time is not exactly half a millisecond, it is a little bit more, since the way common OS's handle this, is that they put the process aside at least up until the correct time has passed, after which the scheduler might (at some point) pick it up again.
What is seriously problematic is not that the time t is not exactly half a second but that it cannot be known in advance how much more it is. This inaccuracy is not constant nor deterministic.
This has surprising consequences when doing physical automation. For example it is impossible to command a stepper motor accurately with any typical OS without using dedicated hardware through kernel interfaces and telling them how long time steps you really want. Because of this, a single AVR module can command several motors accurately, but a Raspberry Pi (that absolutely stomps the AVR in terms of clockspeed) cannot manage more than 2 with any typical OS.
I recently started to learn how the CPU and the operating system works, and I am a bit confused about the operation of a single-CPU machine with an operating system that provides multitasking.
Supposing my machine has a single CPU, this would mean that, at any given time, only one process could be running.
Now, I can only assume that the scheduler used by the operating system to control the access to the precious CPU time is also a process.
Thus, in this machine, either the user process or the scheduling system process is running at any given point in time, but not both.
So here's a question:
Once the scheduler gives up control of the CPU to another process, how can it regain CPU time to run itself again to do its scheduling work? I mean, if any given process currently running does not yield the CPU, how could the scheduler itself ever run again and ensure proper multitasking?
So far, I had been thinking, well, if the user process requests an I/O operation through a system call, then in the system call we could ensure the scheduler is allocated some CPU time again. But I am not even sure if this works in this way.
On the other hand, if the user process in question were inherently CPU-bound, then, from this point of view, it could run forever, never letting other processes, not even the scheduler run again.
Supposing time-sliced scheduling, I have no idea how the scheduler could slice the time for the execution of another process when it is not even running?
I would really appreciate any insight or references that you can provide in this regard.
The OS sets up a hardware timer (Programmable interval timer or PIT) that generates an interrupt every N milliseconds. That interrupt is delivered to the kernel and user-code is interrupted.
It works like any other hardware interrupt. For example your disk will force a switch to the kernel when it has completed an IO.
Google "interrupts". Interrupts are at the centre of multithreading, preemptive kernels like Linux/Windows. With no interrupts, the OS will never do anything.
While investigating/learning, try to ignore any explanations that mention "timer interrupt", "round-robin" and "time-slice", or "quantum" in the first paragraph – they are dangerously misleading, if not actually wrong.
Interrupts, in OS terms, come in two flavours:
Hardware interrupts – those initiated by an actual hardware signal from a peripheral device. These can happen at (nearly) any time and switch execution from whatever thread might be running to code in a driver.
Software interrupts – those initiated by OS calls from currently running threads.
Either interrupt may request the scheduler to make threads that were waiting ready/running or cause threads that were waiting/running to be preempted.
The most important interrupts are those hardware interrupts from peripheral drivers – those that make threads ready that were waiting on IO from disks, NIC cards, mice, keyboards, USB etc. The overriding reason for using preemptive kernels, and all the problems of locking, synchronization, signaling etc., is that such systems have very good IO performance because hardware peripherals can rapidly make threads ready/running that were waiting for data from that hardware, without any latency resulting from threads that do not yield, or waiting for a periodic timer reschedule.
The hardware timer interrupt that causes periodic scheduling runs is important because many system calls have timeouts in case, say, a response from a peripheral takes longer than it should.
On multicore systems the OS has an interprocessor driver that can cause a hardware interrupt on other cores, allowing the OS to interrupt/schedule/dispatch threads onto multiple cores.
On seriously overloaded boxes, or those running CPU-intensive apps (a small minority), the OS can use the periodic timer interrupts, and the resulting scheduling, to cycle through a set of ready threads that is larger than the number of available cores, and allow each a share of available CPU resources. On most systems this happens rarely and is of little importance.
Every time I see "quantum", "give up the remainder of their time-slice", "round-robin" and similar, I just cringe...
To complement #usr's answer, quoting from Understanding the Linux Kernel:
The schedule( ) Function
schedule( ) implements the scheduler. Its objective is to find a
process in the runqueue list and then assign the CPU to it. It is
invoked, directly or in a lazy way, by several kernel routines.
[...]
Lazy invocation
The scheduler can also be invoked in a lazy way by setting the
need_resched field of current [process] to 1. Since a check on the value of this
field is always made before resuming the execution of a User Mode
process (see the section "Returning from Interrupts and Exceptions" in
Chapter 4), schedule( ) will definitely be invoked at some close
future time.