Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix stale dl_defer_running in update_dl_entity() if-branch

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 04:12:15PM +0800, soolaugust@gmail.com wrote:
> From: zhidao su <suzhidao@xiaomi.com>
> 
> commit 115135422562 ("sched/deadline: Fix 'stuck' dl_server") added a
> dl_defer_running = 0 reset in the if-branch of update_dl_entity() to
> handle the case where [4] D->A is followed by [1] A->B (lapsed
> deadline). The intent was to ensure the server re-enters the zero-laxity
> wait when restarted after the deadline has passed.
> 
> With Proxy Execution (PE), RT tasks proxied through the scheduler appear
> to trigger frequent dl_server_start() calls with expired deadlines. When
> this happens with dl_defer_running=1 (from a prior starvation episode),
> Peter's fix forces the fair_server back through the ~950ms zero-laxity
> wait each time.
> 
> In our testing (virtme-ng, 4 CPUs, 4G RAM, ksched_football):
>   With this fix:    ~1s for all players to check in
>   Without this fix: ~28s for all players to check in
> 
> The issue appears to be that the clearing in update_dl_entity()'s
> if-branch is too aggressive for the PE use case.
> replenish_dl_new_period() already handles this via its internal guard:
> 
>   if (dl_se->dl_defer && !dl_se->dl_defer_running) {
>       dl_se->dl_throttled = 1;
>       dl_se->dl_defer_armed = 1;
>   }
> 
> When dl_defer_running=1 (starvation previously confirmed by the
> zero-laxity timer), replenish_dl_new_period() skips arming the
> zero-laxity timer, allowing the server to run directly. This seems
> correct: once starvation has been confirmed, subsequent start/stop
> cycles triggered by PE should not re-introduce the deferral delay.
> 
> Note: this is the same change as the HACK revert in John's PE series
> (679ede58445 "HACK: Revert 'sched/deadline: Fix stuck dl_server'"),
> but with the rationale documented.
> 
> The state machine comment is updated to reflect the actual behavior of
> replenish_dl_new_period() when dl_defer_running=1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: zhidao su <suzhidao@xiaomi.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 12 +++---------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 01754d699f0..30b03021fce 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1034,12 +1034,6 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  			return;
>  		}
>  
> -		/*
> -		 * When [4] D->A is followed by [1] A->B, dl_defer_running
> -		 * needs to be cleared, otherwise it will fail to properly
> -		 * start the zero-laxity timer.
> -		 */
> -		dl_se->dl_defer_running = 0;
>  		replenish_dl_new_period(dl_se, rq);
>  	} else if (dl_server(dl_se) && dl_se->dl_defer) {
>  		/*

This cannot be right; it will insta break Andrea's test case again.

And I cannot make sense of your explanation; how does PE cause what to
happen? You mention PROXY_WAKING, this then means proxy_force_return().

I suspect whatever it is you're seeing will go away once we delete that
thing, see this discussion:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260402155055.GV3738010@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net