public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@codethink.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Subject: Re: SCHED_DEADLINE tasks missing their deadline with SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM jobs in the mix (using GRUB)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:52:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250620185248.634101cc@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aFV-HEwOTq0a37ax@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:28 +0200
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 20/06/25 16:16, luca abeni wrote:
[...]
> > So, I had a look tying to to remember the situation... This is my
> > current understanding:
> > - the max_bw field should be just the maximum amount of CPU
> > bandwidth we want to use with reclaiming... It is rt_runtime_us /
> > rt_period_us; I guess it is cached in this field just to avoid
> > computing it every time.
> >   So, max_bw should be updated only when
> >   /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_{runtime,period}_us are written
> > - the extra_bw field represents an additional amount of CPU
> > bandwidth we can reclaim on each core (the original m-GRUB
> > algorithm just reclaimed Uinact, the utilization of inactive tasks).
> >   It is initialized to Umax when no SCHED_DEADLINE tasks exist and  
> 
> Is Umax == max_bw from above?

Yes; sorry about the confusion


> >   should be decreased by Ui when a task with utilization Ui becomes
> >   SCHED_DEADLINE (and increased by Ui when the SCHED_DEADLINE task
> >   terminates or changes scheduling policy). Since this value is
> >   per_core, Ui is divided by the number of cores in the root
> > domain... From what you write, I guess extra_bw is not correctly
> >   initialized/updated when a new root domain is created?  
> 
> It looks like so yeah. After boot and when domains are dinamically
> created. But, I am still not 100%, I only see weird numbers that I
> struggle to relate with what you say above. :)

BTW, when running some tests on different machines I think I found out
that 6.11 does not exhibit this issue (this needs to be confirmed, I am
working on reproducing the test with different kernels on the same
machine)

If I manage to reproduce this result, I think I can run a bisect to the
commit introducing the issue (git is telling me that I'll need about 15
tests :)
So, stay tuned...


> > All this information is probably not properly documented... Should I
> > improve the description in
> > Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.rst or do you prefer some
> > comments in kernel/sched/deadline.c? (or .h?)  
> 
> I think ideally both. sched-deadline.rst should probably contain the
> whole picture with more information and .c/.h the condendensed
> version.

OK, I'll try to do this in next week


			Thanks,
				Luca

  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-20 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-28 18:04 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks missing their deadline with SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM jobs in the mix (using GRUB) Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-02 13:55 ` Juri Lelli
2025-05-02 14:10   ` luca abeni
2025-05-03 13:14     ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-05 15:53       ` luca abeni
2025-05-03 11:14   ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-07 20:25     ` luca abeni
2025-05-19 13:32       ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-20 16:09         ` luca abeni
2025-05-21  9:59           ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-23 19:46         ` luca abeni
2025-05-25 19:29           ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-05-29  9:39             ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-02 14:59               ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-06-17 12:21                 ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-18 11:24                   ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-06-20  9:29                     ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-20  9:37                       ` luca abeni
2025-06-20  9:58                         ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-20 14:16                         ` luca abeni
2025-06-20 15:28                           ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-20 16:52                             ` luca abeni [this message]
2025-06-24  7:49                               ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-24 12:59                                 ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-24 15:00                                   ` luca abeni
2025-06-25  9:30                                     ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-25 10:11                                       ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-25 12:50                                         ` luca abeni
2025-06-26 10:59                                           ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-06-26 11:45                                             ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-25 15:55                                   ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-06-24 13:36                               ` luca abeni
2025-05-30  9:21             ` luca abeni
2025-06-03 11:18               ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-06-06 13:16                 ` luca abeni

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=20250620185248.634101cc@nowhere \
    --to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcel.ziswiler@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
    /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