Re: [PATCH v10 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:21:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:12:30PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -6155,6 +6159,35 @@ static int sched_idle_cpu(int cpu)
> > >  }
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > +static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> > > +
> > > +static void check_preempt_from_others(struct cfs_rq *cfs, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct sched_entity *next;
> > > +
> > > +     if (se->latency_offset >= 0)
> > > +             return;
> > > +
> > > +     if (cfs->nr_running <= 1)
> > > +             return;
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * When waking from another class, we don't need to check to preempt at
> > > +      * wakeup and don't set next buddy as a candidate for being picked in
> > > +      * priority.
> > > +      * In case of simultaneous wakeup when current is another class, the
> > > +      * latency sensitive tasks lost opportunity to preempt non sensitive
> > > +      * tasks which woke up simultaneously.
> > > +      */
> > > +
> > > +     if (cfs->next)
> > > +             next = cfs->next;
> > > +     else
> > > +             next = __pick_first_entity(cfs);
> > > +
> > > +     if (next && wakeup_preempt_entity(next, se) == 1)
> > > +             set_next_buddy(se);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /*
> > >   * The enqueue_task method is called before nr_running is
> > >   * increased. Here we update the fair scheduling stats and
> > > @@ -6241,14 +6274,15 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > >       if (!task_new)
> > >               update_overutilized_status(rq);
> > >
> > > +     if (rq->curr->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
> > > +             check_preempt_from_others(cfs_rq_of(&p->se), &p->se);
> > > +
> > >  enqueue_throttle:
> > >       assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> > >
> > >       hrtick_update(rq);
> > >  }
> >
> > Hmm.. This sets a next selection when the task gets enqueued while not
> > running a fair task -- and looses a wakeup preemption opportunity.
> >
> > Should we perhaps also do this for latency_nice == 0?, in any case I
> > think this can be moved to its own patch to avoid doing too much in the
> > one patch. It seems fairly self contained.
> 
> This function is then removed by patch 9 as the additional rb tree
> fixes all cases

Ah, I'm currently 'stuck' at 8.. I'll get there :-)