The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@codethink.co.uk>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>,
	Luca Abeni	 <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: SCHED_DEADLINE tasks causing WARNING at kernel/sched/sched.h message
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:03:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac735cc59bbdccd3e99f5fa9c779b3904d19f990.camel@codethink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aLlabksolt1imHXe@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>

Hi Juri

Thanks for getting back to me and sorry for my late reply.

On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 11:22 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
> 
> On 02/09/25 18:49, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Tue, 2025-09-02 at 16:06 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> > > As part of our trustable work [1], we also run a lot of real time scheduler (SCHED_DEADLINE) tests on the
> > > mainline Linux kernel (v6.16.2 in below reported case).
> > 
> > Looking through more logs from earlier test runs I found similar WARN_ONs dating back as early as v6.15.3.
> > So
> > it does not look like a "new" issue in that sense.
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
> 
> What's the actual workload composition leading the warning. I noticed
> stress-ng in the report. Could you please share more details?

Yes, sure. It's actually the exact same workload as related to the regression I reported back in April [1].

We currently use three cores as follows:

#### core x

|sched_deadline = sched_period | sched_runtime | CP max run time 90% of sched_runtime | utilisation | reclaim |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|  5 ms  | 0.15 ms | 0.135 ms |  3.00% | no |
| 10 ms  | 1.8 ms  | 1.62 ms  | 18.00% | no |
| 10 ms  | 2.1 ms  | 1.89 ms  | 21.00% | no |
| 14 ms  | 2.3 ms  | 2.07 ms  | 16.43% | no |
| 50 ms  | 8.0 ms  | 7.20 ms  | 16:00% | no |
| 10 ms  | 0.5 ms  | **1      |  5.00% | no |

Total utilisation of core x is 79.43% (less than 100%)

**1 - this shall be a rogue process. This process will
 a) run for the maximum allowed workload value 
 b) do not collect execution data

#### core y

|sched_deadline = sched_period | sched_runtime | CP max run time 90% of sched_runtime | utilisation | reclaim |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|  5 ms  | 0.5 ms | 0.45 ms | 10.00% | no |
| 10 ms  | 1.9 ms | 1.71 ms | 19.00% | no |
| 12 ms  | 1.8 ms | 1.62 ms | 15.00% | no |
| 50 ms  | 5.5 ms | 4.95 ms | 11.00% | no |
| 50 ms  | 9.0 ms | 8.10 ms | 18.00% | no |

Total utilisation of core y is 73.00% (less than 100%)

#### core z

The third core is special as it will run 50 jobs with the same configuration as such:

|sched_deadline = sched_period | sched_runtime | CP max run time 90% of sched_runtime | utilisation |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
|  50 ms  | 0.8 ms | 0.72 ms | 1.60% |

jobs 1-50 should run with reclaim OFF

Total utilisation of core y is 1.6 * 50 = 80.00% (less than 100%)

In addition to that main workload we also run further stressors like from the stress-ng suite. However, only on
the remaining cores and in a controlled nsjail/apparmor sandbox.

Please let me know if you need any further details which may help figuring out what exactly is going on.

> Thanks!
> Juri

Cheers

Marcel

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/f532441d8b3cf35e7058305fd9cd3f2cbd3a9fac.camel@codethink.co.uk

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-12 10:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-02 14:06 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks causing WARNING at kernel/sched/sched.h message Marcel Ziswiler
2025-09-02 16:49 ` Marcel Ziswiler
2025-09-04  9:22   ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-12 10:03     ` Marcel Ziswiler [this message]
2025-09-15 13:54       ` Juri Lelli

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=ac735cc59bbdccd3e99f5fa9c779b3904d19f990.camel@codethink.co.uk \
    --to=marcel.ziswiler@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
    --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