In the previous example, we bound Quake to one of the two processors in our system. To ensure top-notch frame rates, we need to bind all the other processes on the system to the other processor. You can do this by hand or by writing a crafty script, but neither is efficient. Instead, make use of the fact that CPU affinity is inherited across a fork(). All of a process' children receive the same CPU affinity mask as their parent.
Then, all we need to do is have init bind itself to one processor. All other processes, by nature of init being the root of the process tree and thus the superparent of all processes, are then likewise bound to the one processor.
The cleanest way to do this type of bind is to hack this feature into init itself and pass in the desired CPU affinity mask using the kernel command line. We can accomplish our goal with a simpler solution, though, without having to modify and recompile init. Instead, we can edit the system startup script. On most systems this is /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit or /etc/rc.sysinit, the first script run by init. Place the sample bind program in /bin, and add these lines to the start of rc.sysinit:
/bin/bind 1 1 /bin/bind $$ 1
These lines bind init (whose PID is one) and the current process to processor zero. All future processes will fork from one of these two processes and thus inherit the CPU affinity mask. You then can bind your process (whether it be a real-time nuclear control system or Quake) to processor one. All processes will run on processor zero except our special process (and any children), which will run on processor one. This ensures that the entire processor is available for our special process.
Long before Linus merged the CPU affinity system calls, the kernel supported and respected a CPU affinity mask. There was no interface by which user space could set the mask.
Each process' mask is stored in its task_struct as an unsigned long, cpus_allowed. The task_struct structure is called the process descriptor. It stores all the information about a process. The CPU affinity interface merely reads and writes cpus_allowed.
Whenever the kernel attempts to migrate a process from one processor to another, it first checks to see if the destination processor's bit is set in cpus_allowed. If the bit is not set, the kernel does not migrate the process. Further, whenever the CPU affinity mask is changed, if the process is no longer on an allowed processor it is migrated to one that is allowed. This ensures the process begins on a legal processor and can migrate only to a legal processor. Of course, if it is bound to only a single processor, it does not migrate anywhere.
The CPU affinity interface introduced in 2.5 and back-ported elsewhere provides a simple yet powerful mechanism for controlling which processes are scheduled onto which processors. Users with more than one processor may find the system calls useful in squeezing another drop of performance out of their systems or for ensuring that processor time is available for even the most demanding real-time task. Of course, users with only one processor need not feel left out. They also can use the system calls, but they aren't going to be too useful.
Robert Love is a kernel hacker involved in various projects, including the preemptive kernel and the scheduler. He is a Mathematics and Computer Science student at the University of Florida and a kernel engineer at MontaVista Software. He enjoys photography.
Practical Task Scheduling Deployment
July 20, 2016 12:00 pm CDT
One of the best things about the UNIX environment (aside from being stable and efficient) is the vast array of software tools available to help you do your job. Traditionally, a UNIX tool does only one thing, but does that one thing very well. For example, grep is very easy to use and can search vast amounts of data quickly. The find tool can find a particular file or files based on all kinds of criteria. It's pretty easy to string these tools together to build even more powerful tools, such as a tool that finds all of the .log files in the /home directory and searches each one for a particular entry. This erector-set mentality allows UNIX system administrators to seem to always have the right tool for the job.
Cron traditionally has been considered another such a tool for job scheduling, but is it enough? This webinar considers that very question. The first part builds on a previous Geek Guide, Beyond Cron, and briefly describes how to know when it might be time to consider upgrading your job scheduling infrastructure. The second part presents an actual planning and implementation framework.
Join Linux Journal's Mike Diehl and Pat Cameron of Help Systems.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
- SUSE LLC's SUSE Manager
- Murat Yener and Onur Dundar's Expert Android Studio (Wrox)
- My +1 Sword of Productivity
- Tech Tip: Really Simple HTTP Server with Python
- Non-Linux FOSS: Caffeine!
- Managing Linux Using Puppet
- Returning Values from Bash Functions
- Rogue Wave Software's Zend Server
- Doing for User Space What We Did for Kernel Space
- Google's SwiftShader Released
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide