skip to main content
10.1145/2656045.2656066acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Real-time multi-core virtual machine scheduling in xen

Published:12 October 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent years have witnessed two major trends in the development of complex real-time embedded systems. First, to reduce cost and enhance flexibility, multiple systems are sharing common computing platforms via virtualization technology, instead of being deployed separately on physically isolated hosts. Second, multicore processors are increasingly being used in real-time systems. The integration of real-time systems as virtual machines (VMs) atop common multicore platforms raises significant new research challenges in meeting the real-time performance requirements of multiple systems. This paper advances the state of the art in real-time virtualization by designing and implementing RT-Xen 2.0, a new real-time multicore VM scheduling framework in the popular Xen virtual machine monitor (VMM). RT-Xen 2.0 realizes a suite of real-time VM scheduling policies spanning the design space. We implement both global and partitioned VM schedulers; each scheduler can be configured to support dynamic or static priorities and to run VMs as periodic or deferrable servers. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation that provides important insights into real-time scheduling on virtualized multicore platforms: (1) both global and partitioned VM scheduling can be implemented in the VMM at moderate overhead; (2) at the VMM level, while compositional scheduling theory shows partitioned EDF (pEDF) is better than global EDF (gEDF) in providing schedulability guarantees, in our experiments their performance is reversed in terms of the fraction of workloads that meet their deadlines on virtualized multi-core platforms; (3) at the guest OS level, pEDF requests a smaller total VCPU bandwidth than gEDF based on compositional scheduling analysis, and therefore using pEDF at the guest OS level leads to more schedulable workloads in our experiments; (4) a combination of pEDF in the guest OS and gEDF in the VMM -- configured with deferrable server -- leads to the highest fraction of schedulable task sets compared to other real-time VM scheduling policies; and (5) on a platform with a shared last-level cache, the benefits of global scheduling outweigh the cache penalty incurred by VM migration.

References

  1. COQOS Operating System. http://www.opensynergy.com/en/Products/COQOS/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Credit Scheduler. http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Credit_Scheduler.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Fiasco micro-kernel. http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/fiasco/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. INTEGRITY Multivisor. http://www.ghs.com/products/rtos/integrity_virtualization.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual. http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-optimization-manual.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Intel Ivy Bridge 7-Zip LZMA Benchmark Results. http://www.7-cpu.com/cpu/IvyBridge.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kernel Based Virtual Machine. http://www.linux-kvm.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. LITMUS-RT. http://www.litmus-rt.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. The Xen Project's Hypervisor for the ARM architecture. http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/arm-hypervisor.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Aswathanarayana, D. Niehaus, V. Subramonian, and C. Gill. Design and Performance of Configurable Endsystem Scheduling Mechanisms. In RTAS, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield. Xen and the Art of Virtualization. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Barush and B. Brandenburg. Multiprocessor feasibility analysis of recurrent task systems with specified processor affinities. In RTSS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Bastoni, B. B. Brandenburg, and J. H. Anderson. An Empirical Comparison of Global, and Clustered Multiprocessor EDF Schedulers. In RTSS. IEEE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Behnam, I. Shin, T. Nolte, and M. Nolin. SIRAP: A Synchronization Protocol for Hierarchical Resource Sharing in Real-Time Open Systems. In EMSOFT, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. Bini, G. Buttazzo, and M. Bertogna. The Multi Supply Function Abstraction for Multiprocessors. In RTCSA. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. B. Brandenburg and J. H. Anderson. On the Implementation of Global Real-Time Schedulers. In RTSS. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. F. Bruns, S. Traboulsi, D. Szczesny, E. Gonzalez, Y. Xu, and A. Bilgic. An Evaluation of Microkernel-Based Virtualization for Embedded Real-Time Systems. In ECRTS, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. C. Buttazzo. Rate monotonic vs. edf: judgment day. Real-Time Syst., 29(1):5--26, Jan. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. M. Calandrino, H. Leontyev, A. Block, U. C. Devi, and J. H. Anderson. LITMUS-RT: A Testbed for Empirically Comparing Real-Time Multiprocessor Schedulers. In RTSS, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. F. Checconi, T. Cucinotta, D. Faggioli, and G. Lipari. Hierarchical Multiprocessor CPU Reservations for the Linux Kernel. OSPERT, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Crespo, I. Ripoll, and M. Masmano. Partitioned Embedded Architecture Based on Hypervisor: the XtratuM Approach. In EDCC, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Cucinotta, G. Anastasi, and L. Abeni. Respecting Temporal Constraints in Virtualised Services. In COMPSAC, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Cucinotta, F. Checconi, G. Kousiouris, D. Kyriazis, T. Varvarigou, A. Mazzetti, Z. Zlatev, J. Papay, M. Boniface, S. Berger, et al. Virtualised e-learning with real-time guarantees on the irmos platform. In Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA). IEEE, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Danish, Y. Li, and R. West. Virtual-CPU Scheduling in the Quest Operating System. In RTAS, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Z. Deng and J. Liu. Scheduling Real-Time Applications in an Open Environment. In RTSS, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Easwaran, M. Anand, and I. Lee. Compositional Analysis Framework Using EDP Resource Models. In RTSS, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Easwaran, I. Shin, and I. Lee. Optimal virtual cluster-based multiprocessor scheduling. Real-Time Syst., 43(1):25--59, Sept. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Easwaran, I. Shin, and I. Lee. Optimal Virtual Cluster-Based Multiprocessor Scheduling. Real-Time Systems, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Govindan, A. R. Nath, A. Das, B. Urgaonkar, and A. Sivasubramaniam. Xen and Co.: Communication-aware CPU Scheduling for Consolidated Xen-based Hosting Platforms. In VEE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. G. Gracioli, A. A. Fröhlich, R. Pellizzoni, and S. Fischmeister. Implementation and evaluation of global and partitioned scheduling in a real-time os. Real-Time Systems, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. Groesbrink, L. Almeida, M. de Sousa, and S. M. Petters. Towards certifiable adaptive reservations for hypervisor-based virtualization. In RTAS, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. D. Gupta, R. Gardner, and L. Cherkasova. Xenmon: Qos Monitoring and Performance Profiling Tool. Hewlett-Packard Labs, Tech. Rep. HPL-2005-187, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. H. Härtig, M. Völp, and M. Hähnel. The case for practical multi-resource and multi-level scheduling based on energy/utility. In RTCSA, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. A. Lackorzyński, A. Warg, M. Völp, and H. Härtig. Flattening hierarchical scheduling. In EMSOFT. ACM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. J. Lee, S. Xi, S. Chen, L. T. X. Phan, C. Gill, I. Lee, C. Lu, and O. Sokolsky. Realizing Compositional Scheduling Through Virtualization. In RTAS. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Lee, A. Krishnakumar, P. Krishnan, N. Singh, and S. Yajnik. Supporting Soft Real-Time Tasks in the Xen Hypervisor. In ACM Sigplan Notices, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. H. Leontyev and J. H. Anderson. A Hierarchical Multiprocessor Bandwidth Reservation Scheme with Timing Guarantees. Real-Time Systems, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. B. Lin and P. A. Dinda. Vsched: Mixing batch and interactive virtual machines using periodic real-time scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. G. Lipari and E. Bini. A Framework for Hierarchical Scheduling on Multiprocessors: From Application Requirements to Run-Time Allocation. In RTSS. IEEE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. W. Lunniss, S. Altmeyer, C. Maiza, and R. I. Davis. Integrating Cache Related Pre-emption Delay Analysis into EDF Scheduling. In RTAS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. Regehr and J. Stankovic. HLS: A Framework for Composing Soft Real-Time Schedulers. In RTSS, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. Altmeyer, R. I. Davis, and C. Maiza. Improved Cache Related Pre-emption Delay Aware Response Time Analysis for Fixed Priority Pre-emptive Systems. Real-Time Systems, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. I. Shin and I. Lee. Compositional Real-Time Scheduling Framework. In RTSS, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Y. Wang and K. Lin. The Implementation of Hierarchical Schedulers in the RED-Linux Scheduling Framework. In ECRTS, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. S. Xi, J. Wilson, C. Lu, and C. Gill. RT-Xen: Towards Real-Time Hypervisor Scheduling in Xen. In EMSOFT. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. Xu, L. T. X. Phan, I. Lee, and O. Sokolsky. Compositional analysis under global deadline monotonic. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. M. Xu, L. T. X. Phan, I. Lee, O. Sokolsky, S. Xi, C. Lu, and C. D. Gill. Cache-Aware Compositional Analysis of Real-Time Multicore Virtualization Platforms. In RTSS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. J. Yang, H. Kim, S. Park, C. Hong, and I. Shin. Implementation of compositional scheduling framework on virtualization. SIGBED Rev, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. S. Yoo, K.-H. Kwak, J.-H. Jo, and C. Yoo. Toward under-millisecond I/O latency in Xen-ARM. In Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems, page 14. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. H. Yun, G. Yao, R. Pellizzoni, M. Caccamo, and L. Sha. MemGuard: Memory Bandwidth Reservation System for Efficient Performance Isolation in Multi-core Platforms. In RTAS, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. W. Zhang, S. Rajasekaran, T. Wood, and M. Zhu. MIMP: Deadline and Interference Aware Scheduling of Hadoop Virtual Machines. In IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Real-time multi-core virtual machine scheduling in xen

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          EMSOFT '14: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Embedded Software
          October 2014
          301 pages
          ISBN:9781450330527
          DOI:10.1145/2656045

          Copyright © 2014 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 October 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate60of203submissions,30%

          Upcoming Conference

          ESWEEK '24
          Twentieth Embedded Systems Week
          September 29 - October 4, 2024
          Raleigh , NC , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader