[REPORT] sched_ext: sub-scheduler tasks are severely under-scheduled vs root-owned tasks

[REPORT] sched_ext: sub-scheduler tasks are severely under-scheduled vs root-owned tasks

[Tao Cui]

Hello Tejun,

During recent testing of the sub-scheduler attach flow, I hit what
looks like a dispatch starvation for claimed tasks and want to check
whether it's a known limitation of the sub-sched dispatch model before
digging further.

Setup:

A kvm guest (4 vCPUs, HZ=1000) running a sched_ext/for-7.4 based tree
with the caps-clear patch applied. A pair of minimal cid-form test
schedulers: a parent that grants SCX_CAP_PERF | SCX_CAP_ENQ_IMMED over
a cgroup to a child, and the child writing cpuperf target 1 from
ops.tick(). A busy-loop task (`taskset 1 sh -c 'while :; do :; done'`)
is placed in the child's cgroup (pinned to cpu0), and
rq->scx.cpuperf_target plus per-task CPU time are sampled every second.

Two attach orders are tested:
(a) the busy-loop task is moved into the cgroup before the child
    attaches;
(b) the task is moved in after the child attaches.

Observation:

Order (a), 8 rounds: the child claims the task in every round
(verified: the enable walk's handover fires, p->scx.sched == child),
but the task then runs at ~0.3% duty cycle - it accumulates 0 or
~20-27 ticks per 10s window (one SCX_SLICE_DFL slice) while an
identical task owned by the parent runs at ~100% (1000 ticks/s).

Order (b), 8 rounds: the child claims the task via the migration path
and the task runs normally (no starvation observed in 16 rounds across
two parent-load conditions).

Based on the current test data, the disparity is ~300x: root-owned
tasks run at full duty while child-owned tasks get one slice and then
starve. The starvation is silent: attach succeeds, the grant succeeds,
the task's cgroup membership is correct - there is no error, warning,
or counter that indicates anything is wrong.

Probes and exclusions:

- ops.dispatch() for the child's cid is never invoked: a counter
  bumped in ops.dispatch() when cid == 0 stays 0 across entire runs,
  including rounds where the task is starved.
- ops.tick() for the child fires only when the task actually runs
  (the tick count matches the starved duty cycle).
- The parent's ops.dispatch() delegation via
  scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(cgroup_id) does not change the behavior.
- An explicit scx_bpf_kick_cid() on the task's cid in ops.enqueue()
  does not change the behavior.
- The enable walk's claim is verified: pass 1 (init) and pass 2
  (handover) both process the task, and a post-handover ownership
  check (scx_task_on_sched()) passes.
- Adding a root-owned busy task on another CPU raises the failure rate
  from ~25% to ~100%, which suggests the claimed task only gets to run
  when some unrelated event runs balance on its CPU.

This is independent of the caps-clear patch (it reproduces with and
without it). The root cause is likely in the sub-sched attach->dispatch
path itself, so any sub-scheduler deployment would be affected.

Questions:

1. Is this a known gap in the sub-sched dispatch model - claimed tasks
   on idle CPUs waiting for a delegation that only happens when the
   parent's dispatch runs for that CPU?
2. Is the intended pattern for parents to kick CPUs on the child's
   behalf (scx_bpf_kick_cid() after grant/claim), or should the core
   route the balance to the child?

The repro is deterministic (8/8 rounds with the starvation in order
(a) under root-side load).

Thanks.
--
Tao

Re: [REPORT] sched_ext: sub-scheduler tasks are severely under-scheduled vs root-owned tasks

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Tao.

On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 04:36:49PM +0800, Tao Cui wrote:
> A pair of minimal cid-form test
> schedulers: a parent that grants SCX_CAP_PERF | SCX_CAP_ENQ_IMMED over
> a cgroup to a child, and the child writing cpuperf target 1 from
> ops.tick().

Can you explain exactly what you tested and how, including the scheduler
source and complete reproduction steps? This isn't a useful bug report
without that information.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun