Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Two Case Studies in Predictable Application Scheduling Using Rialto/NT Michael B. Jones – Microsoft Research John Regehr – University of Virginia Stefan.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Two Case Studies in Predictable Application Scheduling Using Rialto/NT Michael B. Jones – Microsoft Research John Regehr – University of Virginia Stefan."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Two Case Studies in Predictable Application Scheduling Using Rialto/NT Michael B. Jones – Microsoft Research John Regehr – University of Virginia Stefan Saroiu – University of Washington

2 2 Application Case Studies Two applications needing predictable execution on Windows 2000 Soft Modem Driver Digital Audio Player The case studies analyze behavior on normal Windows 2000 study improvements possible using Rialto/NT CPU Reservation mechanism

3 3 Consumer Real-Time General-purpose Operating Systems, such as Windows 2000: maximize aggregate throughput approximate fair sharing of the resources Increasing use of time-dependent tasks signal processing, audio, video Need support for: predictable scheduling for independently developed applications low latency responses explicit resource allocation mechanisms

4 4 Rialto/NT Abstractions Two real-time software abstractions: CPU Reservations – ongoing reservation for at least X time units out of every Y units for a thread Time Constraints – one-shot time reservation for specified amount of work between start time and deadline Case studies use only CPU Reservations

5 5 Rialto/NT Implementation Rialto/NT developed on top of Windows 2000 priority scheduler Limitations: CPU Reservations must be integer multiples of milliseconds Frequency of reservations must be power-of-two multiple of 1ms

6 6 First Case Study Predictable Scheduling for a Soft Modem

7 7 Why Study Soft Modems ? Signal Processing done on host CPU: requires predictable scheduling requires low latency responses While coexisting with other system activities Soft Modem is a background real-time task Successful in home computer market: Low cost Easy to update – software upgrade

8 8 Methodology Instrumented Windows 2000 performance kernel: Logs predefined and custom events Writes them to a memory buffer Dumps buffers to disk at end of trace Driver Software: No source for signal processing code Measurement Environment: All experiments run with normal-priority spinning competitor thread System: Windows 2000 Professional Pentium II 450 MHz (uniprocessor) 384 MB ECC SDRAM MB allocated to logging

9 9 Vendor Driver Version - Processing in Interrupt (INT) Operation of the modem: 1. DMA transfers between A/D and D/A and physical memory 2. When enough data samples, the modem raises an interrupt 3. Inside ISR, process incoming data and provide outgoing samples, before buffers exhausted Uses input and output data buffers holding bit samples (1024 bytes/buffer)

10 10 Three Additional Versions DPC Version (DPC) The ISR queues a DPC DPC performs signal processing Thread Version (THR) The ISR queues a DPC that signals a thread via a semaphore Thread performs signal processing Experimented with several different priorities Rialto/NT Version (RES) Same as THR, but thread scheduled using Rialto/NT real-time periodic CPU Reservation

11 11 Interrupt Rate 3 different phases, interrupts very regular Falls within PC 99 recommended interrupt rates of 3-16ms

12 12 Elapsed Times in ISR (INT) PC 99 recommends maximum time during which a driver-based modem disables interrupts should not exceed 100 µs 1.8 ms with repeatable worst case of 3.3 ms

13 13 CPU Utilization 14.7% sustained load on 450MHz Pentium II

14 14 Elapsed Times in ISR (DPC) ISR times now small, typically < 6µs

15 15 Elapsed Times in Queued DPC PC 99 recommends that the total execution time required for all queued DPCs should not exceed 500 µs But now long DPC times: 1.8ms avg., 3.3 max (same as elapsed times in ISR for INT)

16 16 Samples Pending to be Processed (INT & THR 24) Small relative to 512 sample buffer size

17 17 Samples Pending to be Processed (THR 8) Unsurprisingly, contention kills modem

18 18 Latency Results Set the multimedia timers to fire once every millisecond Register a routine to be called every millisecond Routine does very little work Stores cycle counter value and sleeps again Histograms show differences between recorded times and ideal times

19 19 Coexisting Thread Latencies (Control Case - No Modem) Maximum 1978µs between wakeups

20 20 Coexisting Thread Latencies (INT) Maximum 5313µs between wakeups

21 21 Coexisting Thread Latencies (DPC) Maximum 4396µs between wakeups

22 22 Coexisting Thread Latencies (THR 24) Maximum 2239µs between wakeups

23 23 What Have We Learned So Far? Signal processing in the context of the interrupt handler is: unnecessary detrimental to the latencies and predictability of coexisting activities Vendor choice understandable For any priority there is a potentially unbounded delay between the interrupt and the thread running In practice Delays are reasonable for well-configured systems [Intel OSDI 99] Using interrupts extreme form of priority inflation

24 24 Two Possible Solutions Rate Monotonic Analysis – determine the right priority assignments among all threads - two problems: Assumes cooperative priority assignment among all threads - unrealistic Working priority assignment dependent upon timing requirements of all threads Changes in application mix may require changes in priority assignments Use a time-based real-time scheduler Such as Rialto/NT

25 25 Samples Pending to be Processed (RES 2ms/8ms – 25%) Fits well within 512-sample buffer size

26 26 Coexisting Thread Latencies (RES 2ms/8ms – 25%) Maximum 1971µs between wakeups

27 27 File Transfer Times Results for 10 copies of 200,000 bytes each For 1/8, 2/15, 3/17, 4/17, 7/20 no test passed

28 28 Modem Reservation Ranges Sensitivity to both percentage and gaps If period < 12.5ms, must get 14.7% to work If period > 12.5ms, (period – amount) >= 12.5ms must also hold

29 29 Soft Modem Conclusions Signal Processing in interrupt context is: Unnecessary Detrimental to the predictability and latencies of the coexisting activities The DPC version has similar problems Threads help alleviate these problems Modem runs well with real-time priorities and non-real- time competition However modem threads may interfere with other threads Real-time scheduler allows Control over modems degree of interference with other time-sensitive activities Performance isolation for threads using reservations

30 30 Industry Perspective Vendor did try their own THR version Worked fine during normal load However, modem was starved when: Copying data between two IDE devices Using USB scanner (Intel 440BX chipset) that turned off interrupts for ms Therefore they shipped the INT version Vendor is willing to be a good citizen only if ensured that others would be as well Systematic latency timing verification of components is needed to enforce good behavior

31 31 Soft DSL is Coming More demanding than soft modems 4ms processing period G.lite 1.531Mbps downstream and 512Kbps upstream ~ 25% of a 600 MHz Pentium III Full rate DSL 3.062Mbps downstream and 512Kbps upstream Nearly 50% of a 600 MHz Pentium III Soft Bluetooth period 312.5µs

32 32 Further Soft Modem Studies Software-based Digital Subscriber Line (SoftDSL) studies Multiple Soft Modems within the same machine Similar studies on multiprocessors

33 33 Second Case Study Predictable Scheduling for Digital Audio

34 34 Methodology Empirically reverse-engineer thread requirements in a complex, legacy soft real-time application without use of source code Assign CPU reservations to threads without modifying the application Measure application behavior during contention

35 35 Windows Media Player Default player for mp3, wav, avi, mpeg Experimental method Modelled contention using spinning thread at various priorities Gave CPU Reservations to media player threads Played an mp3 song Listened for glitches Used instrumented kernel to detect buffer under-runs

36 36 Media Player Thread Structure (Simplified) ThreadPeriod (ms)Priority Kernel Mixer (*)1024 MP3 Decoder (*)1009 User Interface458 Disk Reader20008 (*) Received CPU Reservations in some experiments.

37 37 MP3 Playback w/o Contention Kmixer thread (top) runs every 10ms MP3 decoder (4th line) runs every 100ms Works fine

38 38 Starvation Caused by Competing Priority 10 Media Player runs only when NT priority inversion avoidance logic kicks in

39 39 Media Player + Reservation 1ms every 16ms reserved for decoder thread Competing with priority 10 thread Works fine

40 40 Priority Inversion Caused by Competing Thread Competitor thread (priority 9) preempts MP3 decoder while holding Kmixer buffer lock Kmixer misses next two time slots (x) Starves, causes audio glitch Fix: raise decoder priority before grabbing lock xx

41 41 Media Player Deadlock Circular wait among Media Player threads Deadlock broken by a timeout Fix: file a bug report…

42 42 Media Player Results Expected In the presence of contention, the Windows priority scheduler allows real-time apps to starve This can be fixed by giving real-time threads CPU Reservation Unexpected Competitor thread changes sequencing, exposes races in Media Player Hard to write correct programs with many threads & mutexes Fixed using priority ceiling emulation

43 43 Implications of Results Periods of threads in complex legacy apps can be reverse engineered Amounts are platform-dependent and are harder Next step to store application requirements and use middleware to automatically assign reservations No application support needed Potentially a way around the chicken/egg problem of using reservations in a world of legacy OSs and applications

44 44 Possible Continued Media Experiments Study software DVD player CPU intensive and time sensitive

45 45 Overall Conclusions Status quo insufficient Applications either inflate their priorities as did the soft modem driver or are at the mercy of applications that may be run at higher priorities as is the case with the digital audio player CPU Reservations solve this problem by allowing applications to reliably obtain the time they need while allowing other applications to do the same

46 46 For More Information See Mike Jones or John Regehr or Stefan Saroiu Related papers at Mikes web site

Download ppt "1 Two Case Studies in Predictable Application Scheduling Using Rialto/NT Michael B. Jones – Microsoft Research John Regehr – University of Virginia Stefan."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google