mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	wangtao554@huawei.com, quzicheng@huawei.com,
	wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, dsmythies@telus.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 16:47:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260209154718.GW1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5968919-d0c2-4dd3-86dc-90d6710e6b7d@amd.com>

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 03:45:58PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:

>        # Overflow on enqueue
> 
>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : __enqueue_entity: Overflowed cfs_rq:
>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_cfs_rq: cfs_rq: depth(0) weight(90894772) nr_queued(2) sum_w_vruntime(0) sum_weight(0) zero_vruntime(701164930256050) sum_shift(0) avg_vruntime(701809615900788)
>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_entity: se: weight(3508) vruntime(701809615900788) slice(2800000) deadline(701810568648095) curr?(1) task?(1)       <-------- cfs_rq->curr
>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : __enqueue_entity: Overflowed se:
>            <...>-102371  [255] ... : dump_h_overflow_entity: se: weight(90891264) vruntime(701808975077099) slice(2800000) deadline(701808975109401) curr?(0) task?(0)   <-------- new se

So I spend a whole time trying to reproduce the splat, but alas.

That said, I did spot something 'funny' in the above, note that
zero_vruntime and avg_vruntime/curr->vruntime are significantly apart.
That is not something that should happen. zero_vruntime is supposed to
closely track avg_vruntime.

That lead me to hypothesise that there is a problem tracking
zero_vruntime when there is but a single runnable task, and sure
enough, I could reproduce that, albeit not at such a scale as to lead to
such problems (probably too much noise on my machine).

I ended up with the below; and I've already pushed out a fresh
queue/sched/core. Could you please test again?

---
Subject: sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Mon Feb  9 15:28:16 CET 2026

It turns out that zero_vruntime tracking is broken when there is but a single
task running. Current update paths are through __{en,de}queue_entity(), and
when there is but a single task, pick_next_task() will always return that one
task, and put_prev_set_next_task() will end up in neither function.

This can cause entity_key() to grow indefinitely large and cause overflows,
leading to much pain and suffering.

Furtermore, doing update_zero_vruntime() from __{de,en}queue_entity(), which
are called from {set_next,put_prev}_entity() has problems because:
 
 - set_next_entity() calls __dequeue_entity() before it does cfs_rq->curr = se.
   This means the avg_vruntime() will see the removal but not current, missing
   the entity for accounting.
 
 - put_prev_entity() calls __enqueue_entity() before it does cfs_rq->curr =
   NULL. This means the avg_vruntime() will see the addition *and* current,
   leading to double accounting.

Both cases are incorrect.

Noting that avg_vruntime is already called on each {en,de}queue, remove the
explicit avg_vruntime() calls (which removes an extra 64bit division for each
{en,de}queue) and have avg_vruntime() update zero_vruntime itself.

Additionally, have the tick call avg_vruntime() -- discarding the result, but
for the side-effect of updating zero_vruntime.

While there, optimize avg_vruntime() by noting that the average of one value is
rather trivial to compute.

Test case:
  # taskset -c -p 1 $$
  # taskset -c 2 bash -c 'while :; do :; done&'
  # cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug  | awk '/^cpu#/ {P=0} /^cpu#2,/ {P=1} {if (P) print $0}' | grep -e zero_vruntime -e "^>"

PRE:
    .zero_vruntime                 : 31316.407903
  >R            bash   487     50787.345112   E       50789.145972           2.800000     50780.298364        16     120         0.000000         0.000000         0.000000        /
    .zero_vruntime                 : 382548.253179
  >R            bash   487    427275.204288   E      427276.003584           2.800000    427268.157540        23     120         0.000000         0.000000         0.000000        /

POST:
    .zero_vruntime                 : 17259.709467
  >R            bash   526     17259.709467   E       17262.509467           2.800000     16915.031624         9     120         0.000000         0.000000         0.000000        /
    .zero_vruntime                 : 18702.723356
  >R            bash   526     18702.723356   E       18705.523356           2.800000     18358.045513         9     120         0.000000         0.000000         0.000000        /

Fixes: 79f3f9bedd14 ("sched/eevdf: Fix min_vruntime vs avg_vruntime")
Reported-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c |   81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -589,6 +589,21 @@ static inline bool entity_before(const s
 	return vruntime_cmp(a->deadline, "<", b->deadline);
 }
 
+/*
+ * Per avg_vruntime() below, cfs_rq::zero_vruntime is only slightly stale
+ * and this value should be no more than two lag bounds. Which puts it in the
+ * general order of:
+ *
+ *	(slice + TICK_NSEC) << NICE_0_LOAD_SHIFT
+ *
+ * which is around 44 bits in size (on 64bit); that is 20 for
+ * NICE_0_LOAD_SHIFT, another 20 for NSEC_PER_MSEC and then a handful for
+ * however many msec the actual slice+tick ends up begin.
+ *
+ * (disregarding the actual divide-by-weight part makes for the worst case
+ * weight of 2, which nicely cancels vs the fuzz in zero_vruntime not actually
+ * being the zero-lag point).
+ */
 static inline s64 entity_key(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
 {
 	return vruntime_op(se->vruntime, "-", cfs_rq->zero_vruntime);
@@ -676,39 +691,60 @@ sum_w_vruntime_sub(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq
 }
 
 static inline
-void sum_w_vruntime_update(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, s64 delta)
+void update_zero_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, s64 delta)
 {
 	/*
 	 * v' = v + d ==> sum_w_vruntime' = sum_runtime - d*sum_weight
 	 */
 	cfs_rq->sum_w_vruntime -= cfs_rq->sum_weight * delta;
+	cfs_rq->zero_vruntime += delta;
 }
 
 /*
- * Specifically: avg_runtime() + 0 must result in entity_eligible() := true
+ * Specifically: avg_vruntime() + 0 must result in entity_eligible() := true
  * For this to be so, the result of this function must have a left bias.
+ *
+ * Called in:
+ *  - place_entity()      -- before enqueue
+ *  - update_entity_lag() -- before dequeue
+ *  - entity_tick()
+ *
+ * This means it is one entry 'behind' but that puts it close enough to where
+ * the bound on entity_key() is at most two lag bounds.
  */
 u64 avg_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 {
 	struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
-	s64 avg = cfs_rq->sum_w_vruntime;
-	long load = cfs_rq->sum_weight;
+	s64 delta = 0, runtime = cfs_rq->sum_w_vruntime;
+	long weight = cfs_rq->sum_weight;
 
-	if (curr && curr->on_rq) {
-		unsigned long weight = scale_load_down(curr->load.weight);
+	if (curr && !curr->on_rq)
+		curr = NULL;
 
-		avg += entity_key(cfs_rq, curr) * weight;
-		load += weight;
-	}
+	if (weight) {
+		if (curr) {
+			unsigned long w = scale_load_down(curr->load.weight);
+
+			runtime += entity_key(cfs_rq, curr) * w;
+			weight += w;
+		}
 
-	if (load) {
 		/* sign flips effective floor / ceiling */
-		if (avg < 0)
-			avg -= (load - 1);
-		avg = div_s64(avg, load);
+		if (runtime < 0)
+			runtime -= (weight - 1);
+
+		delta = div_s64(runtime, weight);
+
+	} else if (curr) {
+		/*
+		 * When there is but one element, it is the average.
+		 */
+		delta = curr->vruntime - cfs_rq->zero_vruntime;
 	}
 
-	return cfs_rq->zero_vruntime + avg;
+	update_zero_vruntime(cfs_rq, delta);
+
+	return cfs_rq->zero_vruntime;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -777,16 +813,6 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_r
 	return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
 }
 
-static void update_zero_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
-{
-	u64 vruntime = avg_vruntime(cfs_rq);
-	s64 delta = vruntime_op(vruntime, "-", cfs_rq->zero_vruntime);
-
-	sum_w_vruntime_update(cfs_rq, delta);
-
-	cfs_rq->zero_vruntime = vruntime;
-}
-
 static inline u64 cfs_rq_min_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 {
 	struct sched_entity *root = __pick_root_entity(cfs_rq);
@@ -856,7 +882,6 @@ RB_DECLARE_CALLBACKS(static, min_vruntim
 static void __enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
 {
 	sum_w_vruntime_add(cfs_rq, se);
-	update_zero_vruntime(cfs_rq);
 	se->min_vruntime = se->vruntime;
 	se->min_slice = se->slice;
 	rb_add_augmented_cached(&se->run_node, &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline,
@@ -868,7 +893,6 @@ static void __dequeue_entity(struct cfs_
 	rb_erase_augmented_cached(&se->run_node, &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline,
 				  &min_vruntime_cb);
 	sum_w_vruntime_sub(cfs_rq, se);
-	update_zero_vruntime(cfs_rq);
 }
 
 struct sched_entity *__pick_root_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
@@ -5524,6 +5548,11 @@ entity_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struc
 	update_load_avg(cfs_rq, curr, UPDATE_TG);
 	update_cfs_group(curr);
 
+	/*
+	 * Pulls along cfs_rq::zero_vruntime.
+	 */
+	avg_vruntime(cfs_rq);
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
 	/*
 	 * queued ticks are scheduled to match the slice, so don't bother

  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-09 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-30  9:34 Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30  9:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Only set slice protection at pick time Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 15:52   ` Vincent Guittot
2026-01-30  9:34 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/eevdf: Update se->vprot in reweight_entity() Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 16:20   ` Vincent Guittot
2026-01-30  9:34 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Increase weight bits for avg_vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30  9:34 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Revert 6d71a9c61604 ("sched/fair: Fix EEVDF entity placement bug causing scheduling lag") Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-31  1:47   ` Zhang Qiao
2026-01-31 15:21     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02  9:12       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02  9:24         ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 11:23         ` Zhang Qiao
2026-02-01 17:13 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes Doug Smythies
2026-02-03  6:45 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-03 11:11   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-03 12:19     ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-03 16:36       ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:13         ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11  5:51           ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-04 10:15       ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-09 15:47         ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-02-09 16:52           ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10  5:16           ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10 10:29             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 15:41           ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:09             ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10 18:35               ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 20:04                 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11  6:28                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11  8:50                     ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 23:09               ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:52             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 20:52           ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11  5:21             ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-11  8:49               ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11  9:01                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 10:48                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 10:49                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 11:15                     ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11 16:28                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12  7:43                         ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-12 11:59                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 17:16                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 17:24                               ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-12 19:31                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13  5:22                                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-13  6:44                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13 10:50                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13 14:29                                         ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-14  6:31                                         ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-21 22:51                                           ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12 19:29                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 19:37                                 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-13  6:04                                 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 16:21                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12  5:54                       ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12  7:51                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 15:47                           ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12  7:46                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 23:25                     ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-11  8:48             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-04 10:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-14  7:20 ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-16  3:14   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-16 10:59     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-02-17 14:37       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-02-17 22:02     ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-17  4:20 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-18 18:37 ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-19  7:53   ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20260209154718.GW1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=quzicheng@huawei.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wangtao554@huawei.com \
    --cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.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

Powered by JetHome