RE: [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes

["Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>]

On 2026.02.09.07:47 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 03:45:58PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>
>>        # Overflow on enqueue
>> 
>>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : __enqueue_entity: Overflowed cfs_rq:
>>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_cfs_rq: cfs_rq: depth(0) weight(90894772) nr_queued(2) sum_w_vruntime(0)
sum_weight(0) zero_vruntime(701164930256050) sum_shift(0) avg_vruntime(701809615900788)
>>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_entity: se: weight(3508) vruntime(701809615900788) slice(2800000)
deadline(701810568648095) curr?(1) task?(1)       <-------- cfs_rq->curr
>>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : __enqueue_entity: Overflowed se:
>>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_entity: se: weight(90891264) vruntime(701808975077099) slice(2800000)
deadline(701808975109401) curr?(0) task?(0)   <-------- new se
>
> So I spend a whole time trying to reproduce the splat, but alas.
>
> That said, I did spot something 'funny' in the above, note that
> zero_vruntime and avg_vruntime/curr->vruntime are significantly apart.
> That is not something that should happen. zero_vruntime is supposed to
> closely track avg_vruntime.
>
> That lead me to hypothesise that there is a problem tracking
> zero_vruntime when there is but a single runnable task, and sure
> enough, I could reproduce that, albeit not at such a scale as to lead to
> such problems (probably too much noise on my machine).
>
> I ended up with the below; and I've already pushed out a fresh
> queue/sched/core. Could you please test again?

I tested this "V2". The CPU migration times test results are not good.
We expect the sample time to not deviate from the nominal 1 second
by more than 10 milliseconds for this test. The test ran for about
13 hours and 41 minutes (49,243 samples). Histogram of times:

kernel: 6.19.0-rc8-pz-v2
gov: powersave
HWP: enabled

1.000, 29206
1.001, 19598
1.002, 19
1.003, 15
1.004, 32
1.005, 25
1.006, 3
1.007, 3
1.008, 5
1.009, 5
1.010, 13
1.011, 14
1.012, 13
1.013, 6
1.014, 10
1.015, 16
1.016, 54
1.017, 116
1.018, 57
1.019, 7
1.020, 2
1.021, 1
1.023, 2
1.024, 4
1.025, 7
1.026, 1
1.027, 1
1.028, 1
1.029, 1
1.030, 2
1.037, 1

Total: 49240 : Total >= 10 mSec: 329 ( 0.67 percent)

For reference previous test results are copied and pasted below.

Step 1: Confirm where we left off a year ago:

The exact same kernel from a year ago, that we ended up happy with, was used.

doug@s19:~/tmp/peterz/6.19/turbo$ cat 613.his
Kernel: 6.13.0-stock
gov: powersave
HWP: enabled

1.000000, 23195
1.001000, 10897
1.002000, 49
1.003000, 23
1.004000, 21
1.005000, 9

Total: 34194 : Total >= 10 mSec: 0 ( 0.00 percent)

So, over 9 hours and never a nominal sample time exceeded by over 5 milliseconds.
Very good.

Step 2: Take a baseline sample before this patch set:
Mainline kernel 6.19-rc1 was used:

doug@s19:~/tmp/peterz/6.19/turbo$ cat rc1.his
Kernel: 6.19.0-rc1-stock
gov: powersave
HWP: enabled

1.000000, 19509
1.001000, 10430
1.002000, 32
1.003000, 19
1.004000, 24
1.005000, 13
1.006000, 9
1.007000, 4
1.008000, 3
1.009000, 4
1.010000, 6
1.011000, 2
1.012000, 1
1.013000, 4
1.014000, 10
1.015000, 10
1.016000, 7
1.017000, 10
1.018000, 20
1.019000, 12
1.020000, 5
1.021000, 3
1.022000, 1
1.023000, 2
1.024000, 2  <<< Clamped. Actually 26 and 25 milliseconds

Total: 30142 : Total >= 10 mSec: 95 ( 0.32 percent)

What!!!
Over 8 hours.
It seems something has regressed over the last year.
Our threshold of 10 milliseconds was rather arbitrary.

Step 3: This patch set [V1] and from Peter's git tree:

doug@s19:~/tmp/peterz/6.19/turbo$ cat 02.his
kernel: 6.19.0-rc1-pz
gov: powersave
HWP: enabled

1.000000, 19139
1.001000, 9532
1.002000, 19
1.003000, 17
1.004000, 8
1.005000, 3
1.006000, 2
1.009000, 1

Total: 28721 : Total >= 10 mSec: 0 ( 0.00 percent)

Just about 8 hours.
Never a time >= our arbitrary threshold of 10 milliseconds.
So, good.

My test computer also hung under the heavy heavy load test,
albeit at a higher load than before.
There was no log information that I could find after the re-boot.

References:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/000d01dc939e$0fc99fe0$2f5cdfa0$@telus.net/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/005f01db5a44$3bb698e0$b323caa0$@telus.net/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/004a01dc952b$471c94a0$d555bde0$@telus.net/