I have read in Galvin book of operating system about the Medium term scheduler.
It was written that:
Sometimes, it is advantageous to swap out the process when it is not executing[waiting for I/O or waiting for CPU] in order to decrease the degree of multiprogramming.
Also, we get more amount of physical memory which makes the execution of other process faster by decreasing the number of page faults[as we have more memory].
So, its the work of medium term scheduler to swap out & swap in partially executed process.
But My question is: Does the work of medium term scheduler is really important in scenarios where we have plenty of available physical/main memory?
The use of medium term scheduler is to improve multiprogramming by allowing multiple processes to reside in main memory by swapping out processes that are waiting (need I/O) or low priority processes and swapping in other processes that were in ready queue.
So you can see that we requied medium term scheduler when we have limited memory. This swapping in and out operation does not take place when we are running a single small program and have large memory.
Similary if we are running multiple programs and we have very large memory(larger than the size of all processes plus addition space for other requirements) then medium term scheduler is not needed. Modern operating systems use paging so instead of swapping processes they swap pages in and out of memory.It is same as a system with very large memory(infinite) would not suffer from page faults.
Medium term scheduling is part of the swapping. It removes the processes from the memory. It reduces the degree of multiprogramming. The medium term scheduler is in-charge of handling the swapped out-processes.
TUTORIALS POINT
Simply Easy Learning Page 28
Running process may become suspended if it makes an I/O request. Suspended processes cannot make any progress towards completion. In this condition, to remove the process from memory and make space for other process, the suspended process is moved to the secondary storage. This process is called swapping, and the process is said to be swapped out or rolled out. Swapping may be necessary to improve the process mix.
Related
I've come across articles on "through-put vs latency" in contexts like networking e.g. https://homepage.cs.uri.edu/~thenry/resources/unix_art/ch12s04.html But in the context of computer architecture / operating systems, I'm not able to understand why would there be a trade-off between latency (response time of a program) and through-put (how many programs we're able to complete in a unit of time, say per hour). Is this solely due to the fact that we can choose to parallelize processing of multiple programs / requests leading to overheads like context switches & sharing of caches which make the start-to-end response time per process to be worse? Or am I missing something here?
In terms of single instructions in a superscalar pipelined out-of-order exec CPU, throughput vs. latency is very important because the CPU is trying to extract parallelism from an instruction stream that has to be executed as if in serial program order. See Assembly - How to score a CPU instruction by latency and throughput and the bottom of my answer on latency vs throughput in intel intrinsics for example.
In terms of OS decisions that affect throughput vs. latency on a much longer timescale than a few clock cycles, that's a totally separate question.
One of the major factors there is choosing how to use the available physical RAM, and whether to page out (to a swap file) infrequently used code / data to make more room to cache disk files. (e.g. Linux's vm.swappiness is widely considered a key tunable in terms of setting it differently between servers and desktops. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88693/why-is-swappiness-set-to-60-by-default).
If you alt-tab to a window when many pages of that process have been paged out, it will take some time before the process can redraw its window. (Multiple hard page faults, can be quite slow especially if paging on a rotational disk, not SSD.) So to optimize for latency, you want the kernel to not aggressively swap out pages from running processes, even if they've been idle for a few hours. Those pages, if they'd been free, could have improved throughput for other processes by acting as buffers / cache.
A related factor is I/O scheduling: trying to group IO requests together to minimize HD seek times (for higher throughput and lower average latency), but sometimes at the expense of delaying a few requests for a longer time (higher worst-case latency). Linux for example has many to choose from, including deadline, Completely Fair Queuing (CFQ), and the original elevator (just grouping requests by locality without consideration of fairness or latency). https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/improving_performance#Input/output_schedulers
CPU scheduling is also a factor: a context-switch hurts throughput, as it takes time itself and caches will likely be cold for the new task on this CPU. You also have to run the kernel's schedule() function to decide which task to run next, so that takes away some time from real work.
To minimize latency (for example between a socket message being sent to a process and it waking up when its poll or select system call returns), you want a short timeslice, like Linux HZ=1000. (Timer interrupts every 1 ms to run the scheduler). And you want to be able to pre-empt even the kernel itself, instead of waiting until the kernel is ready to return to the old user-space to consider the possibility of running a different user-space task.
But neither of these helps throughput, and in fact hurt (assuming the workload has enough parallelism to not bottleneck on latency). So HZ=100 was the default for "server" Linux builds, vs. 1000 on "desktop" builds tuned for interactive use. (Modern Linux can be "tickless", not using a fixed timer interrupt on every core at all, instead deciding when to schedule the next interrupt on a case by case basis.)
Real-time kernels take this even further, spending more time on finer-grained locking and stuff like that to enable pausing work and coming back to it later to minimize interrupt latency and other latencies between it being time to do something and actually starting to do that thing. (There are real-time patches for Linux, and there are also totally separate kernels built from the ground up for real-time operation.)
If you have an embedded system controlling a motor or something, you absolutely need hard real-time latency guarantees that it will never take longer than say 1 millisecond from an interrupt pin being asserted to the interrupt handler starting to run.
(Designing the system to make these guarantees possible often comes at the cost of throughput. e.g. obviously you have to pin some memory to make it not swappable, if we're talking about user-space, making it unavailable for cache even if it goes untouched for days.)
Today's computer architecture are trying to maximize the number of registers. It is faster to access a register (which is an integrated memory circuit near the cpu) than to access first-level cache. The problem is, that each context switch has to save all registers into cache, because the next thread needs other register values. What a modern CPU is doing is to cycle in one second through 100 tasks and everytime it saves the registers, and fetches the old one until the task can be started.
IMHO it would be nice to use one CPU for one task, and no context switching is happening. That means we get 100 CPUs, each 1000 registers which has to be never saved. Is that possible or have I a ignored an important detail?
The only way to completely avoid context switching is by having at least as many cores as there are tasks. Generally, there is no guarantee regarding the maximum number of tasks that may run. Current GPUs and manycore processors and co-processors contain hundreds of small cores. If you put multiple of these things in the same system or in a cluster of systems, you can have thousands or more cores. Still, even if you could avoid context switching with such design, these cores are much slower than the traditional high-end CPU cores, so the net effect might be negative.
But let's take a step back here. The number of context switches is not primarily determined by the number of tasks and cores. Tasks don't just perform computations, they also need to interact with I/O devices and wait for things to happen such as results from other tasks or user input. So some tasks would be in a wait state. The overhead of context switching depends on not only the number of tasks but also the behavior of these tasks.
Both processors architects and OS developers are aware of context switching overhead and employ a variety of techniques to alleviate it. For example, x86 provides a number of instructions that are tuned to saving the context (partially) of the current task. The OS thread scheduler uses techniques such as priorities, preemption (with possibly large time slices on servers), and priority boosting. All of these help reducing the number of context switches and therefore their overall overhead. In addition, reducing the overhead of context switching is not the only thing that matters. In particular, the responsiveness of the system is very important as well, which is at odds with that overhead.
I'm unsure how Round Robin scheduling works with I/O Operations. I've learned that CPU bound processes are favoured by Round Robin scheduling, but what happens if a process finishes its time slice early?
Say we neglect the dispatching process itself and a process finishes its time slice early, will the scheduler schedule another process if its CPU bound, or will the current process start its IO operation, and since that isn't CPU bound, will immediately switch to another (CPU bound) process after? And if CPU bound processes are favoured, will the scheduler schedule ALL CPU bound process until they are finished and only afterwards schedule the I/O processes?
Please help me understand.
There are two distinct schedulers: the CPU (process/thread ...) scheduler, and the I/O scheduler(s).
CPU schedulers typically employ some hybrid algorithms, because they certainly do regularly encounter both pre-emption and processes which voluntarily give up part of their time-slice. They must service higher-priority work quickly, while not "starving" anyone. (A study of the current Linux scheduler is most interesting. There have been several.)
CPU schedulers identify processes as being either "primarily 'I/O-bound'" or "primarily 'CPU-bound'" at this particular time, knowing that their characteristics can and do change. If your process repeatedly consumes full time slices, it is seen as CPU-bound.
I/O schedulers seek to order and re-order the I/O request queues for maximum efficiency. For instance, to keep the read/write head of a physical disk-drive moving efficiently in a single direction. (The two components of disk-drive delay are "seek time" and "rotational latency," with "seek time" being by-far the worst of the two. Per contra, solid-state drives have very different timing.) I/O-schedulers also have to be aware of the channels (disk interface cards, cabling, etc.) that provide access to each device: they can't simply watch what any one drive is doing. As with the CPU-scheduler, requests must be efficiently handled but never "starved." Linux's I/O-schedulers are also readily available for your study.
"Pure round-robin," as a scheduling discipline, simply means that all requests have equal priority and will be serviced sequentially in the order that they were originally submitted. Very pretty birds though they are, you rarely encounter Pure Robins in real life.
Without going into details, how is a Monitor different from an OS?
I read that first there was Serial Processing in the earlier days, and then Monitors and now OS.
Monitor in this context means Batch Monitor.
In the 1950s - mid 60s, before we had true operating systems, we had Batch Monitors. You would "program" the job onto punch cards and put them on an input queue that the machine would process one by one.
The programmer would sit in front of a monitor, which would display memory dumps, debugging information, etc - it was an incredibly tedious process.
Of course the major drawback of a Batch Monitor is that the CPU was often idle. Because CPU speeds are so much faster than I/O speed, the machine would spend the majority of the time reading in the cards (I/O) while the CPU waited.
Nowadays, modern operating systems can run several processes at once and optimize CPU utilization. When a process on the run queue needs to do I/O, the OS puts it on another queue, and the CPU starts processing the next job. When the I/O is done, that process is moved back to the run queue. This way, the CPU is always doing something.
Edit:
After looking up "batch monitor" and not finding many references to it, it seems that it is more commonly referred to as a "batch system" - here's a book for reference; should be able to find a pdf version online:
Modern Operating Systems.
Can a shared ready queue limit the scalability of a multiprocessor system?
Simply put, most definetly. Read on for some discussion.
Tuning a service is an art-form or requires benchmarking (and the space for the amount of concepts you need to benchmark is huge). I believe that it depends on factors such as the following (this is not exhaustive).
how much time an item which is picked up from the ready qeueue takes to process, and
how many worker threads are their?
how many producers are their, and how often do they produce ?
what type of wait concepts are you using ? spin-locks or kernel-waits (the latter being slower) ?
So, if items are produced often, and if the amount of threads is large, and the processing time is low: the data structure could be locked for large windows, thus causing thrashing.
Other factors may include the data structure used and how long the data structure is locked for -e.g., if you use a linked list to manage such a queue the add and remove oprations take constant time. A prio-queue (heaps) takes a few more operations on average when items are added.
If your system is for business processing you could take this question out of the picture by just using:
A process based architecure and just spawning multiple producer consumer processes and using the file system for communication,
Using a non-preemtive collaborative threading programming language such as stackless python, Lua or Erlang.
also note: synchronization primitives cause inter-processor cache-cohesion floods which are not good and therefore should be used sparingly.
The discussion could go on to fill a Ph.D dissertation :D
A per-cpu ready queue is a natural selection for the data structure. This is because, most operating systems will try to keep a process on the same CPU, for many reasons, you can google for.What does that imply? If a thread is ready and another CPU is idling, OS will not quickly migrate the thread to another CPU. load-balance kicks in long run only.
Had the situation been different, that is it was not a design goal to keep thread-cpu affinities, rather thread migration was frequent, then keeping separate per-cpu run queues would be costly.