All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Cui <cui.tao@linux.dev>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: cui.tao@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com,
	changwoo@igalia.com, michalblk@google.com, liwanwu@kylinos.cn,
	sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: fix vtime priority queue inversion on wide vtime spread
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8665587-a825-48d8-afb2-53fe10af0546@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <apZ06G_-oC5cTprM@gpd4>

Hello, Andrea, Tejun.

在 2026/9/1 14:47, Andrea Righi 写道:
> Hi Tao,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 10:40:37AM +0800, Tao Cui wrote:
>> From: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> scx_dsq_priq_less() compares dsq_vtime with time_before64(), a cyclic
>> comparison that is only valid when the values in the queue are less
>> than 2^63 apart. Unlike CFS, which enforces that invariant with
>> min_vruntime clamping, sched_ext takes dsq_vtime directly from the BPF
>> scheduler and cannot bound the spread. A scheduler that inserts tasks
>> with vtimes wider than 2^63 apart into one DSQ gets the order inverted:
>> the tasks it placed last run first and the rest starve. Reproduced with
>> a probe scheduler assigning half its tasks vtimes near 0 and the other
>> half vtimes above 2^63 -- four of eight busy tasks monopolized the CPU
>> while the other four starved.
>>
>> Compare with plain u64 < instead, which is a total order and always
>> honors the order the scheduler asked for. The transient misordering
>> around the natural 2^64 wrap is the same class of anomaly the cyclic
>> comparison trades it for, but bounded.
> 
> I don't think switching to plain u64 ordering is safe here.
> 
> The current scx_bpf_dsq_insert_vtime() documentation explicitly defines the
> ordering in terms of time_before64(), including wraparound. For example:
> 
>   a = U64_MAX - 5
>   b = 3
> 
> a is earlier than b in cyclic vtime ordering. time_before64(a, b) correctly
> returns true, while plain a < b would place b first.
> 
> Moreover, this is not a short transient. If post-wrap tasks continue to be
> reinserted with small vtimes, a can remain behind them until their vtime
> traverses almost the entire u64 range, resulting in effective starvation.
> 
> Can we preserve time_before64() and document or enforce the half-range
> requirement instead?
> 

You're both right, patch 1/2 was wrong. My probe fed values that
violate the rolling-cursor assumption, and the "inversion" was the
API behaving as documented. Dropping 1/2.

I'll send the documentation patch Tejun suggested.

Thanks,
Tao

> Thanks,
> -Andrea
> 
>>
>> Fixes: 06e51be3d5e7 ("sched_ext: Add vtime-ordered priority queue to dispatch_q's")
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/ext/ext.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
>> index 8041c87a3562..dd0ce01370d1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
>> @@ -1417,7 +1417,8 @@ static bool scx_dsq_priq_less(struct rb_node *node_a,
>>  	const struct task_struct *b =
>>  		container_of(node_b, struct task_struct, scx.dsq_priq);
>>  
>> -	return time_before64(a->scx.dsq_vtime, b->scx.dsq_vtime);
>> +	/* dsq_vtime is arbitrary BPF input: keep a total order */
>> +	return a->scx.dsq_vtime < b->scx.dsq_vtime;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void dsq_inc_nr(struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq, struct task_struct *p, u64 enq_flags)
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-01  9:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-01  2:40 [PATCH 0/2] sched_ext: fix wraparound-unsafe vtime orderings Tao Cui
2026-09-01  2:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: fix vtime priority queue inversion on wide vtime spread Tao Cui
2026-09-01  2:54   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  6:47   ` Andrea Righi
2026-09-01  9:44     ` Tao Cui [this message]
2026-09-01  8:29   ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-01  2:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched_ext/scx_flatcg: make cgv_node_less() wraparound-safe Tao Cui
2026-09-01  2:51   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  3:54   ` bot+bpf-ci

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d8665587-a825-48d8-afb2-53fe10af0546@linux.dev \
    --to=cui.tao@linux.dev \
    --cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=cuitao@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liwanwu@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=michalblk@google.com \
    --cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.