Self-tuning Schedulers for Legacy Real-Time Applications

RETIS Lab
Real-Time Systems Laboratory

“Self-tuning Schedulers for Legacy Real-
Time Applications”

Tommaso Cucinotta, Fabio Checconi Luca Abeni, Luigi Palopoli
Real-Time Systems Laboratory University of Trento
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna

Introduction and motivations

Tommaso Cucinotta – Real Time Systems Laboratory (ReTiS) – Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Sant’Anna
© 2007 Scuola Superiore

Motivations

General-Purpose Operating Systems
 Very effective for storing & managing multimedia contents

 Designed for
• average-case performance

• serving applications on a best-effort basis

 They are not the best candidate for serving real-time

applications with tight timing constraints
• nor for real-time multimedia


Motivations
Overcoming limitations of a GPOS for multimedia
 Large buffers used to compensate unpredictability
• ==> poor real-time interactivity and no low-latency multimedia

 One-application one-system paradigm
• For example, for low-latency real-time audio processing (jack),
gaming, CD/DVD burning, etc...

 POSIX real-time extensions
• Priority-based, no temporal isolation
• Not appropriate for deploying the multitude of (soft) real-time
applications populating the systems of tomorrow

Motivations
Recent developments in GPOS CPU scheduling
 EDF-based real-time scheduling with temporal isolation
• Better utilization of resources
• Independent applications are isolated from the temporal perspective

 Various APIs for accessing the enhanced functionality
• For example, the FRSH API from
• For example, the API from

 They require modifications of the applications
• at the source-code level

 What about legacy multimedia applications ?

Research objectives
This research aims to
 allow (legacy) real-time periodic applications
 to benefit of real-time scheduling facilities increasingly
available on a GPOS
 without any change in the application source-code


Proposed approach


Proposed approach

Application
Application

Monitor
Monitor

Kernel
Scheduling
Scheduling Real-Time
Real-Time
Parameters
Parameters Scheduler
Scheduler


Proposed approach

Proposed approach
 An appropriate tracing mechanism observes the

application, inferring main parameters affecting a (periodic)
multimedia application temporal behaviour:
• job execution time
• period

 Scheduling guarantees are automatically provisioned by

the OS, according to proper scheduling parameters
• Based on sound arguments from real-time theory

Proposed approach

Comprehensive view
 Application tracing

 Period estimation (events analysis)

 On-line WCET estimation

 Automagic provisioning of
scheduling guarantees


Real-time theory

Reservation-based scheduling: (Q, P)
 “Q time units guaranteed on CPU every P time units”

(5, 8)
t

(2, 6)


Real-time theory

Known results from the real-time theory
 Not all (Q, P) with
a given Q/P are
equal

 Highlighted by
the shown
supply-bound
function

Real-time theory

What are the reservation
parameters needed for
correctly scheduling a real-
time periodic task with
assigned WCET and period ?

The minimum reservation
utilization is achieved

 when the reservation period

equals the task period

• or any integer sub-
multiple

Core problem

How to detect the application period ?
 Of a legacy real-time application (no source-code
availability, no modifications)
Proposed approach
 Tracing the application behaviour at run-time

 For the purpose of identifying “periodicity patterns”


Legacy application tracing

Tracing legacy multimedia application
 Tracing what the application does
• What system calls it periodically calls
– Waiting, reading time information, posting timers, disk operations,
network operations, etc...

 Tracing how the application behaves temporally
• When it suspends and resumes

Results obtained with system-call tracing


Legacy application tracing

Available mechanisms
 strace Linux utility
• Designed as debugging helper, too much overhead due to the
generation of unneeded data

 ptrace() system call
• Allows an external process to trace the execution of a target
process, forcing it to stop at each entry and exit of a system call

We developed qtrace
 A low-overhead kernel-level system-call tracer

Why a custom tracer

The ptrace() ping-pong

Application
Application Tracer
Tracer Kernel
Kernel

usleep() begin
signal
usleep()
  
timer

usleep() end
signal


Period detection

The tracer produces a sequence of time-stamps

Time-stamps used to compute a Fourier-transform

A heuristic catches the first harmonic

Heuristic

Start from the Fourier Transform sampled at  f


Heuristic

Identify local maxima of the Fourier Transform


Heuristic

Select peaks higher than  times average value


Heuristic

Accumulate FT of up to kmax multiples of each peak


Budget identification
“Feedback-based scheduling” budget control loop


Experimental results


Set-up
 Linux OS, with an implementation of the CBS scheduler
 Feedback-scheduling by means of AQuoSA
 mplayer
• modified to monitor the Inter-Frame Time (IFT) and

 Application tracing by using qtrace (kernel-level)
Validation metrics
 Inter-Frame time

 Allocated bandwidth on the Real-Time scheduler


Using the correct reservation period is better


Benefits for the application
(LFS++ improves over Linux)
A/V desynchronisation in mplayer while starting
the Eclipse IDE
 90% reduction of the peak A/V desynchronisation


Benefits for the application
(LFS++ improves over Linux)

CDF of response-times with a 80% loaded system
 Using a synthetic real-time periodic application load


LFS++ improves over LFS
(our prior work)

Inter-frame times of mplayer are much more stable


LFS++ improves over LFS
(our prior work)

Inter-frame times CDF
is tighter with LFS++

Allocated bandwidth
CDF is tighter with
LFS++


Multiple LFS++ instances
Frequency misdetection degree with other LFS++
controllers already active
 New application runs without guarantees while traced



Precision of the frequency detection heuristic
 acceptable even with 0.5s of observation-time

 detected frequency rock-stable from 1.5s observation-time


PMF of detected
frequency when
observation-time
goes
 From 0.2 ms

 To 2 s


The bill


Cost of tracing
Tracing overhead
 When using strace: +5,51%
 When using qostrace: +2,69% (previous paper)
 When usinig qtrace: +0.63% (kernel-level tracer)

88.57% overhead reduction with the custom tracer


Cost of Fourier Transform

Fourier Transform Overhead
 1ms to 25ms, depending on parameters (and accuracy)

 Linear in the observation-time and f parameter (as expected)


Conclusions


Future work

Better engineering of the tracer

 Tracing of wake-up times instead of system calls

• done in submitted journal extension – improved heuristic
precision at reduced observation times

 Security issues: tracing data queried via ioctl() on special device

Integration with power-management

 Supporting dynamic CPU frequency switching

• done in submitted journal extension – need cooperation
between LFS++ schedulers and OS daemon for power
management

Future work

Guaranteeing multi-threaded applications
 Only marginally tested
Multi-core systems
 All experiments on a single-CPU machine
Feedback-based budget control
 Closer cooperation with the scheduler for quicker response to

workload increases


Related readings

 Tommaso Cucinotta, Luca Abeni, Luigi Palopoli, Fabio Checconi, "The Wizard of OS:
a Heartbeat for Legacy Multimedia Applications," in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE
Workshop on Embedded Systems for Real-Time Multimedia, Grenoble (ESTImedia
2009), Grenoble, October 2009

 Luigi Palopoli, Tommaso Cucinotta, Luca Marzario, Giuseppe Lipari, "AQuoSA -
Adaptive Quality of Service Architecture," Software: Practice and Experience, April
2008, doi 10.1002/spe.883

 Fabio Checconi, Tommaso Cucinotta, Dario Faggioli, Giuseppe Lipari, "Hierarchical
Multiprocessor CPU Reservations for the Linux Kernel," in Proceedings of the 5th
International Workshop on Operating Systems Platforms for Embedded Real-Time
Applications (OSPERT 2009), Dublin, Ireland, June 2009


Thanks for your attention

Questions ?

http://retis.sssup.it/people/tommaso


Self-tuning Schedulers for Legacy Real-Time Applications

More Related Content

Similar to Self-tuning Schedulers for Legacy Real-Time Applications (20)

Self-tuning Schedulers for Legacy Real-Time Applications