Re: [PATCH 3/2] sched/deadline: Use deadline instead of period when calculating overflow

[Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>]

On 15/02/17 14:13, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:59:25 +0000
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 15/02/17 13:31, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > Hi Juri,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +0000
> > > Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > [...]  
> > > > > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can result in a task
> > > > > consuming more than the reserved utilisation. I still need some
> > > > > time to convince me that "runtime / (deadline - t) >
> > > > > dl_runtime / dl_deadline" is the correct check to use (in this
> > > > > case, shouldn't we also change the admission test to use
> > > > > densities instead of utilisations?)   
> > > > 
> > > > Right, this is what I was wondering as well, as dl_overflow()
> > > > currently looks at the period. And I also have some recollection
> > > > of this discussion happening already in the past, unfortunately
> > > > it was not on the list.
> > > > 
> > > > That discussion started with the following patch  
> > > [...]  
> > > > that we then dediced not to propose since (note that these are
> > > > just my memories of the dicussion, so everything it's up for
> > > > further discussion, also in light of the problem highlighted by
> > > > Daniel)
> > > > 
> > > >  - SCHED_DEADLINE, as the documentation says, does AC using
> > > > utilization
> > > >  - it is however true that a sufficient (but not necessary) test
> > > > on UP for D_i != P_i cases is the one of my patch above
> > > >  - we have agreed in the past that the kernel should only check
> > > > that we don't cause "overload" in the system (which is still the
> > > > case if we consider utilizations), not "hard schedulability"  
> > > I remember a similar discussion; I think the decision about what to
> > > do depends on what are the requirements: hard deadline guarantees
> > > (but in this case global EDF is just a bad choice) or tardines no
> > > overload guarantees?
> > > 
> > > My understanding was that the kernel guarantees that deadline tasks
> > > will not starve non-deadline tasks, and that there is an upper bound
> > > for the tardiness experienced by deadline tasks. If this
> > > understanding is correct, then the current admission test is ok.
> > > But if I misunderstood the purpose of the kernel admission test,
> > > then maybe your patch is ok.
> > > 
> > > Then, it is important to keep the admission test consistent with the
> > > checks performed in dl_entity_overflow() (but whatever we decide to
> > > do, dl_entity_overflow() should be fixed).
> > >   
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but I'm a bit lost. :(
> > 
> > Why do you say 'whatever we decide to do'?
> > 
> > In my understanding:
> > 
> >  - if we decide AC shouldn't change (as we care about not-starving
> >    others and having bounded tardiness), then I'd say
> > dl_entity_overflow shouldn't change as well, since it's using
> > dl_runtime/dl_period as 'static bandwidth' (as AC does)
> 
> Yes, but it is comparing dl_runtime/dl_period with
> runtime/(deadline-t), mixing different things. I still need to think
> more about this, but I think it should either compare
> runtime/(deadline-t) with dl_runtime/dl_deadline or
> runtime/(end_of_reservation_period-t) with dl_runtime/dl_period...
> Otherwise we risk to have issues as shown by Daniel and Steven.

OK.

> 
> 
> >  - if we instead move to use densities when doing AC (dl_runtime/dl_
> >    deadline), I think we should also change the check in dl_entity_
> >    overflow, as Steve is proposing
> > 
> >  - in both cases Daniel's fixes look sensible to have
> Yes, Daniel's fixes fix a possible DoS, so they should go in... Then,
> we can decide how to improve the situation.
> 
> > 
> > Where am I wrong? :)
> > 
> > Actually, another thing that we noticed, talking on IRC with Peter, is
> > that we seem to be replenishing differently on different occasions:
> > 
> >  - on wakeup (if overflowing) we do
> > 
> >    dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_se->dl_deadline;
> >    dl_se->runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime;
> > 
> >  - when the replenishment timer fires (un-thottle and with runtime <
> > 0)
> > 
> >    dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period;
> >    dl_se->runtime += pi_se->dl_runtime;
> > 
> > Isn't this problematic as well?
> I _think_ this is correct, because they are two different things: in
> the first case, we generate a new scheduling deadline starting from
> current time (so, the deadline must be computed based on the relative
> deadline); in the second case, we postpone an existing scheduling
> deadline (so, it must be postponed by one period)[*]... No? Or am I
> misunderstanding the issue you saw?
> 

No, what you are saying makes sense, we don't actually have a problem.