From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@marvell.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Query regarding work scheduling
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:48:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250814094831.GT4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJ1eElydTbZfBq5X@opensource>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 03:54:58AM +0000, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
>
> On 2025-08-12 at 18:52:32, Tejun Heo (tj@kernel.org) wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 11:40:34AM +0000, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > One of our customers reported that when their kernel upgraded from 6.1 to 6.6 then they
> > > see more delay in their applications shutdown time.
> > > To put in simple terms, dataplane applications are run with SRIOV VFs attached to them and
> > > apps send number of mailbox messages to kernel PF driver (PF receives an mbox interrupt).
> > > During interrupt handler work is queued and messages are processed in work handler.
> > > I calculated the latencies (time between work queued and work execution start) of 6.1
> > > and 6.16 and below are the observations
> > >
> > >
> > > 6.1 mainline
> > > ------------
> > > Total samples: 4647
> > > Min latency: 0.001 ms
> > > Max latency: 0.195 ms
> > > Total latency: 7.797 ms
> > >
> > > Latency Histogram (bucket size = 0.01 ms):
> > > 0.00 - 0.01 ms: 4644
> > > 0.01 - 0.02 ms: 1
> > > 0.03 - 0.04 ms: 1
> > > 0.19 - 0.20 ms: 1
> > >
> > > ==================
> > >
> > > 6.16 mainline
> > > -------------
> > > Total samples: 4647
> > > Min latency: 0.000 ms
> > > Max latency: 4.880 ms
> > > Total latency: 158.813 ms
> >
> > Difficult to tell where the latencies are coming from. Maybe you can use
> > something like https://github.com/josefbacik/systing to look further into
> > it? All the scheduling events are tracked by default and you should be able
> > to add tracepoints and other events relatively easily. You can also set
> Thanks for the reply. I am using simple busybox to avoid overhead of any other apps
> or deamons running in background and taking CPU time in between.
Well, something is running. So there must be competing runnable tasks.
> I suspect this has something to do with EEVDF scheduling since this behavior is
> seen from 6.6 (please note I may be wrong completly).
EEVDF is stricter in a sense than CFS was, is looks like the workqueue
thread just ran out of cycles and is made to wait.
> Are there any methods or options with which I can bring back CFS scheduling behavior
> maybe with the knobs in /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features as a quick check?
We have a lot of knobs; but not one that says: do-what-I-want.
If you push a ton of work into a workqueue and have competing runnable
tasks; why do you think it isn't reasonable to have the competing tasks
run some of the time?
You can maybe push the slice length up a bit -- it was fixed to the
small side of the CFS dynamic slice. But who knows what your workload is
doing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-14 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-12 11:40 Subbaraya Sundeep
2025-08-12 18:52 ` Tejun Heo
2025-08-14 3:54 ` Subbaraya Sundeep
2025-08-14 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-08-19 11:18 ` Subbaraya Sundeep
2025-10-31 15:14 ` Subbaraya Sundeep
2025-08-14 17:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-08-19 11:36 ` Subbaraya Sundeep
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=20250814094831.GT4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbhatta@marvell.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®