Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add lag based placement)

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:45:57AM +0000, Luis Machado wrote:
> > On 3/11/24 17:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Are we going anywhere with this btw?
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > I think Tobias had a couple other threads related to this, with other potential fixes:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240228161018.14253-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com/
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240228161023.14310-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com/
> > 
> 
> Sorry, Michael, should have provided those threads here as well.
> 
> The more I look into this issue, the more things to ponder upon I find.
> It seems like this issue can (maybe) be fixed on the scheduler side after all.
> 
> The root cause of this regression remains that the mentioned kworker gets
> a negative lag value and is therefore not elligible to run on wake up.
> This negative lag is potentially assigned incorrectly. But I'm not sure yet.
> 
> Anytime I find something that can address the symptom, there is a potential
> root cause on another level, and I would like to avoid to just address a
> symptom to fix the issue, wheras it would be better to find the actual
> root cause.
> 
> I would nevertheless still argue, that vhost relies rather heavily on the fact
> that the kworker gets scheduled on wake up everytime. But I don't have a 
> proposal at hand that accounts for potential side effects if opting for
> explicitly initiating a schedule.
> Maybe the assumption, that said kworker should always be selected on wake 
> up is valid. In that case the explicit schedule would merely be a safety 
> net.
> 
> I will let you know if something comes up on the scheduler side. There are
> some more ideas on my side how this could be approached.

Thanks a lot! To clarify it is not that I am opposed to changing vhost.
I would like however for some documentation to exist saying that if you
do abc then call API xyz. Then I hope we can feel a bit safer that
future scheduler changes will not break vhost (though as usual, nothing
is for sure).  Right now we are going by the documentation and that says
cond_resched so we do that.

-- 
MST