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: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:36:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250624153633.6cb8dde8@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250620185248.634101cc@nowhere>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:52:48 +0200
luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:
[...]
> > >   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...

It took more than I expected, but I think I found the guilty commit...
It seems to be
[5f6bd380c7bdbe10f7b4e8ddcceed60ce0714c6d] sched/rt: Remove default bandwidth control

Starting from this commit, I can reproduce the issue, but if I test the
previous commit (c8a85394cfdb4696b4e2f8a0f3066a1c921af426
sched/core: Fix picking of tasks for core scheduling with DL server)
the issue disappears.

Maybe this information can help in better understanding the problem :)



			Luca

> 
> > > 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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-06-24 13:36 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
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 [this message]
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=20250624153633.6cb8dde8@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