From: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@linux.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sched_ext/for-6.11: cpu validity check in ops_cpu_valid
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:29:07 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zpd5yzMGN9JtV-4C@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zpbp02N6bAE8mNXb@slm.duckdns.org>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:44:51AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vishal.
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:19:16PM +0530, Vishal Chourasia wrote:
> ...
> > However, the case of the BPF scheduler is different; we shouldn't need
> > to handle corner cases but instead immediately flag such cases.
>
> I'm not convinced of this. There's a tension here and I don't think either
> end of the spectrum is the right solution. Please see below.
>
> > Consider this: if a BPF scheduler is returning a non-present CPU in
> > select_cpu, the corresponding task will get scheduled on a CPU (using
> > the fallback mechanism) that may not be the best placement, causing
> > inconsistent behavior. And there will be no red flags reported making it
> > difficult to catch. My point is that sched_ext should be much stricter
> > towards the BPF scheduler.
>
> While flagging any deviation as failure and aborting sounds simple and clean
> on the surface, I don't think it's that clear cut. There already are edge
> conditions where ext or core scheduler code overrides sched_class decisions
> and it's not straightforward to get synchronization against e.g. CPU hotplug
> watertight from the BPF scheduler. So, we can end up with aborting a
> scheduler once in a blue moon for a condition which can only occur during
> hotplug and be easily worked around without any noticeable impact. I don't
> think that's what we want.
>
> That's not to say that the current situation is great because, as you
> pointed out, it's possible to be systematically buggy and fly under the
> radar, although I have to say that I've never seen this particular part
> being a problem but YMMV.
>
> Currently, error handling is binary. Either it's all okay or the scheduler
> dies, but I think things like select_cpu() returning an offline CPU likely
> needs a bit more nuance. ie. If it happens once around CPU hotplug, who
> cares? But if a scheduler is consistently returning an invalid CPU, that
> certainly is a problem and it may not be easy to notice. One way to go about
> it could be collecting stats for these events and let the BPF scheduler
> decide what to do about them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
Thanks for the replies.
--
vishal.c
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-17 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-13 19:14 sched_ext/for-6.11: cpu validity check in ops_cpu_valid Vishal Chourasia
2024-07-15 5:17 ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-16 6:49 ` Vishal Chourasia
2024-07-16 21:44 ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-17 7:59 ` Vishal Chourasia [this message]
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=Zpd5yzMGN9JtV-4C@linux.ibm.com \
--to=vishalc@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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