From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhaval@gianis.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Increase max lag clamping
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:16:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250422101628.GA33555@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250418155115.GI17910@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 05:51:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 05:12:25PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > sched_entity lag is currently limited to the maximum between the tick and
> > twice the slice. This is too short compared to the maximum custom slice
> > that can be set and accumulated by other tasks.
> > Clamp the lag to the maximum slice that a task can set. A task A can
> > accumulate up to its slice of negative lag while running to parity and
> > the other runnable tasks can accumulate the same positive lag while
> > waiting to run. This positive lag could be lost during dequeue when
> > clamping it to twice task's slice if task A's slice is 100ms and others
> > use a smaller value like the default 2.8ms.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index a0c4cd26ee07..1c2c70decb20 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -683,15 +683,17 @@ u64 avg_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > * is possible -- by addition/removal/reweight to the tree -- to move V around
> > * and end up with a larger lag than we started with.
> > *
> > - * Limit this to either double the slice length with a minimum of TICK_NSEC
> > - * since that is the timing granularity.
> > - *
> > - * EEVDF gives the following limit for a steady state system:
> > + * Limit this to the max allowed custom slice length which is higher than the
> > + * timing granularity (the tick) and EEVDF gives the following limit for
> > + * a steady state system:
> > *
> > * -r_max < lag < max(r_max, q)
> > *
> > * XXX could add max_slice to the augmented data to track this.
> > */
>
> Right, its that max_slice XXX there.
>
> I think I've actually done that patch at some point, but I'm not sure
> where I've placed it :-)
No matter, I've redone it by copy-paste from min_slice.
How's something like this then?
---
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index f96ac1982893..9e90cd9023db 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -573,6 +573,7 @@ struct sched_entity {
u64 deadline;
u64 min_vruntime;
u64 min_slice;
+ u64 max_slice;
struct list_head group_node;
unsigned char on_rq;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 84916c865377..7c3c95f5cabd 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -676,6 +676,8 @@ u64 avg_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
return cfs_rq->min_vruntime + avg;
}
+static inline u64 cfs_rq_max_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
+
/*
* lag_i = S - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
*
@@ -689,17 +691,16 @@ u64 avg_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
* EEVDF gives the following limit for a steady state system:
*
* -r_max < lag < max(r_max, q)
- *
- * XXX could add max_slice to the augmented data to track this.
*/
static void update_entity_lag(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
+ u64 max_slice = cfs_rq_max_slice(cfs_rq) + TICK_NSEC;
s64 vlag, limit;
WARN_ON_ONCE(!se->on_rq);
vlag = avg_vruntime(cfs_rq) - se->vruntime;
- limit = calc_delta_fair(max_t(u64, 2*se->slice, TICK_NSEC), se);
+ limit = calc_delta_fair(max_slice, se);
se->vlag = clamp(vlag, -limit, limit);
}
@@ -795,6 +796,21 @@ static inline u64 cfs_rq_min_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
return min_slice;
}
+static inline u64 cfs_rq_max_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
+{
+ struct sched_entity *root = __pick_root_entity(cfs_rq);
+ struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
+ u64 max_slice = 0ULL;
+
+ if (curr && curr->on_rq)
+ max_slice = curr->slice;
+
+ if (root)
+ max_slice = min(max_slice, root->max_slice);
+
+ return max_slice;
+}
+
static inline bool __entity_less(struct rb_node *a, const struct rb_node *b)
{
return entity_before(__node_2_se(a), __node_2_se(b));
@@ -820,6 +836,15 @@ static inline void __min_slice_update(struct sched_entity *se, struct rb_node *n
}
}
+static inline void __max_slice_update(struct sched_entity *se, struct rb_node *node)
+{
+ if (node) {
+ struct sched_entity *rse = __node_2_se(node);
+ if (rse->max_slice < se->max_slice)
+ se->max_slice = rse->max_slice;
+ }
+}
+
/*
* se->min_vruntime = min(se->vruntime, {left,right}->min_vruntime)
*/
@@ -827,6 +852,7 @@ static inline bool min_vruntime_update(struct sched_entity *se, bool exit)
{
u64 old_min_vruntime = se->min_vruntime;
u64 old_min_slice = se->min_slice;
+ u64 old_max_slice = se->max_slice;
struct rb_node *node = &se->run_node;
se->min_vruntime = se->vruntime;
@@ -837,8 +863,13 @@ static inline bool min_vruntime_update(struct sched_entity *se, bool exit)
__min_slice_update(se, node->rb_right);
__min_slice_update(se, node->rb_left);
+ se->max_slice = se->slice;
+ __max_slice_update(se, node->rb_right);
+ __max_slice_update(se, node->rb_left);
+
return se->min_vruntime == old_min_vruntime &&
- se->min_slice == old_min_slice;
+ se->min_slice == old_min_slice &&
+ se->max_slice == old_max_slice;
}
RB_DECLARE_CALLBACKS(static, min_vruntime_cb, struct sched_entity,
@@ -852,6 +883,7 @@ static void __enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
avg_vruntime_add(cfs_rq, se);
se->min_vruntime = se->vruntime;
se->min_slice = se->slice;
+ se->max_slice = se->slice;
rb_add_augmented_cached(&se->run_node, &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline,
__entity_less, &min_vruntime_cb);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-22 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-18 15:12 [PATCH] sched/fair: Increase max lag clamping Vincent Guittot
2025-04-18 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-22 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-04-23 10:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-04-29 6:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-23 10:25 ` [tip: sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix lag clamp tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
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=20250422101628.GA33555@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dhaval@gianis.ca \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox