sched/deadline: Add documentation about GRUB reclaiming

This patch adds the documentation about the GRUB reclaiming algorithm,
adding a few details discussed in list.

Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1495138417-6203-11-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 168 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
index cbc1b46cbf70..e89e36ec15a5 100644
--- a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
+++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ CONTENTS
  0. WARNING
  1. Overview
  2. Scheduling algorithm
+   2.1 Main algorithm
+   2.2 Bandwidth reclaiming
  3. Scheduling Real-Time Tasks
    3.1 Definitions
    3.2 Schedulability Analysis for Uniprocessor Systems
@@ -44,6 +46,9 @@ CONTENTS
 2. Scheduling algorithm
 ==================
 
+2.1 Main algorithm
+------------------
+
  SCHED_DEADLINE uses three parameters, named "runtime", "period", and
  "deadline", to schedule tasks. A SCHED_DEADLINE task should receive
  "runtime" microseconds of execution time every "period" microseconds, and
@@ -113,6 +118,160 @@ CONTENTS
          remaining runtime = remaining runtime + runtime
 
 
+2.2 Bandwidth reclaiming
+------------------------
+
+ Bandwidth reclaiming for deadline tasks is based on the GRUB (Greedy
+ Reclamation of Unused Bandwidth) algorithm [15, 16, 17] and it is enabled
+ when flag SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM is set.
+
+ The following diagram illustrates the state names for tasks handled by GRUB:
+
+                             ------------
+                 (d)        |   Active   |
+              ------------->|            |
+              |             | Contending |
+              |              ------------
+              |                A      |
+          ----------           |      |
+         |          |          |      |
+         | Inactive |          |(b)   | (a)
+         |          |          |      |
+          ----------           |      |
+              A                |      V
+              |              ------------
+              |             |   Active   |
+              --------------|     Non    |
+                 (c)        | Contending |
+                             ------------
+
+ A task can be in one of the following states:
+
+  - ActiveContending: if it is ready for execution (or executing);
+
+  - ActiveNonContending: if it just blocked and has not yet surpassed the 0-lag
+    time;
+
+  - Inactive: if it is blocked and has surpassed the 0-lag time.
+
+ State transitions:
+
+  (a) When a task blocks, it does not become immediately inactive since its
+      bandwidth cannot be immediately reclaimed without breaking the
+      real-time guarantees. It therefore enters a transitional state called
+      ActiveNonContending. The scheduler arms the "inactive timer" to fire at
+      the 0-lag time, when the task's bandwidth can be reclaimed without
+      breaking the real-time guarantees.
+
+      The 0-lag time for a task entering the ActiveNonContending state is
+      computed as
+
+                        (runtime * dl_period)
+             deadline - ---------------------
+                             dl_runtime
+
+      where runtime is the remaining runtime, while dl_runtime and dl_period
+      are the reservation parameters.
+
+  (b) If the task wakes up before the inactive timer fires, the task re-enters
+      the ActiveContending state and the "inactive timer" is canceled.
+      In addition, if the task wakes up on a different runqueue, then
+      the task's utilization must be removed from the previous runqueue's active
+      utilization and must be added to the new runqueue's active utilization.
+      In order to avoid races between a task waking up on a runqueue while the
+       "inactive timer" is running on a different CPU, the "dl_non_contending"
+      flag is used to indicate that a task is not on a runqueue but is active
+      (so, the flag is set when the task blocks and is cleared when the
+      "inactive timer" fires or when the task  wakes up).
+
+  (c) When the "inactive timer" fires, the task enters the Inactive state and
+      its utilization is removed from the runqueue's active utilization.
+
+  (d) When an inactive task wakes up, it enters the ActiveContending state and
+      its utilization is added to the active utilization of the runqueue where
+      it has been enqueued.
+
+ For each runqueue, the algorithm GRUB keeps track of two different bandwidths:
+
+  - Active bandwidth (running_bw): this is the sum of the bandwidths of all
+    tasks in active state (i.e., ActiveContending or ActiveNonContending);
+
+  - Total bandwidth (this_bw): this is the sum of all tasks "belonging" to the
+    runqueue, including the tasks in Inactive state.
+
+
+ The algorithm reclaims the bandwidth of the tasks in Inactive state.
+ It does so by decrementing the runtime of the executing task Ti at a pace equal
+ to
+
+           dq = -max{ Ui, (1 - Uinact) } dt
+
+ where Uinact is the inactive utilization, computed as (this_bq - running_bw),
+ and Ui is the bandwidth of task Ti.
+
+
+ Let's now see a trivial example of two deadline tasks with runtime equal
+ to 4 and period equal to 8 (i.e., bandwidth equal to 0.5):
+
+     A            Task T1
+     |
+     |                               |
+     |                               |
+     |--------                       |----
+     |       |                       V
+     |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|--------->t
+     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
+
+
+     A            Task T2
+     |
+     |                               |
+     |                               |
+     |       ------------------------|
+     |       |                       V
+     |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|--------->t
+     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
+
+
+     A            running_bw
+     |
+   1 -----------------               ------
+     |               |               |
+  0.5-               -----------------
+     |                               |
+     |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|--------->t
+     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
+
+
+  - Time t = 0:
+
+    Both tasks are ready for execution and therefore in ActiveContending state.
+    Suppose Task T1 is the first task to start execution.
+    Since there are no inactive tasks, its runtime is decreased as dq = -1 dt.
+
+  - Time t = 2:
+
+    Suppose that task T1 blocks
+    Task T1 therefore enters the ActiveNonContending state. Since its remaining
+    runtime is equal to 2, its 0-lag time is equal to t = 4.
+    Task T2 start execution, with runtime still decreased as dq = -1 dt since
+    there are no inactive tasks.
+
+  - Time t = 4:
+
+    This is the 0-lag time for Task T1. Since it didn't woken up in the
+    meantime, it enters the Inactive state. Its bandwidth is removed from
+    running_bw.
+    Task T2 continues its execution. However, its runtime is now decreased as
+    dq = - 0.5 dt because Uinact = 0.5.
+    Task T2 therefore reclaims the bandwidth unused by Task T1.
+
+  - Time t = 8:
+
+    Task T1 wakes up. It enters the ActiveContending state again, and the
+    running_bw is incremented.
+
+
 3. Scheduling Real-Time Tasks
 =============================
 
@@ -330,6 +489,15 @@ CONTENTS
   14 - J. Erickson, U. Devi and S. Baruah. Improved tardiness bounds for
        Global EDF. Proceedings of the 22nd Euromicro Conference on
        Real-Time Systems, 2010.
+  15 - G. Lipari, S. Baruah, Greedy reclamation of unused bandwidth in
+       constant-bandwidth servers, 12th IEEE Euromicro Conference on Real-Time
+       Systems, 2000.
+  16 - L. Abeni, J. Lelli, C. Scordino, L. Palopoli, Greedy CPU reclaiming for
+       SCHED DEADLINE. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Linux Workshop (RTLWS),
+       Dusseldorf, Germany, 2014.
+  17 - L. Abeni, G. Lipari, A. Parri, Y. Sun, Multicore CPU reclaiming: parallel
+       or sequential?. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied
+       Computing, 2016.
 
 
 4. Bandwidth management