From: Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
kprateek.nayak@amd.com
Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
connoro@google.com, jstultz@google.com, arighi@nvidia.com,
tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, changwoo@igalia.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched/core: Fix donor slice accounting under proxy execution
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:55:14 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260910105514.2788543-1-sh_def@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260909092901.2989564-6-sh_def@163.com>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 06:29:01PM +0900, Hui Su wrote:
> Core scheduling uses __entity_slice_used() to decide whether the current
> scheduling context has consumed enough of its slice to let a force-idled
> SMT sibling run.
>
> The check is correctly made against rq->donor, since the slice belongs
> to the scheduling context. With proxy execution, however, task runtime
> is accounted to rq->curr. The donor's sum_exec_runtime therefore does
> not advance while another task executes on its behalf, causing
>
> se->sum_exec_runtime - se->prev_sum_exec_runtime
>
> to remain near zero and preventing the force-idle reschedule from
> triggering.
>
> Using rq->curr is not correct either, as that would compare the execution
> task's runtime against its own slice rather than the donor's slice.
>
> Track the donor's task-clock timestamp when it is selected and measure
> the elapsed service using se->exec_start. update_se() advances the donor's
> exec_start from rq_clock_task() even under proxy execution, while the
> accumulated task runtime itself is charged to rq->curr.
>
> Keeping the comparison in the task-clock domain also avoids depending on
> the entity's weight. A vruntime delta accumulated across different
> weights cannot reliably be compared against a slice converted using only
> the current weight.
>
> Only snapshot task entities, as task_tick_core() performs the consumed
> slice check on the donor task.
>
> In non-proxy testing, the task-clock predicate matched the existing
> sum_exec_runtime predicate across HZ=100/250/1000 and nice -10/0/+10.
> Under proxy execution, the donor's sum_exec_runtime delta remained zero
> while the task-clock delta advanced and triggered the force-idle
> reschedule.
Following up on the task_tick_core() discussion with Tim and Chen Yu, I
reworked the implementation while keeping the slice check associated with
rq->donor, because the slice belongs to the scheduling context.
The new predicate measures consumed service in the task-clock domain rather
than using the donor's sum_exec_runtime:
rtime = se->exec_start - rq->core_sched_start;
update_se() advances the donor's exec_start from rq_clock_task() during
proxy execution even though task-level sum_exec_runtime is charged to
rq->curr. This keeps both sides of the comparison in the task-clock domain.
The deadline/virtual-time prototype did not work reliably in my reproducer:
update_deadline() can advance the deadline before task_tick_core() evaluates
the predicate, making the reconstructed virtual service small again after
the donor has consumed service.
The baseline is stored in struct rq rather than every sched_entity. There is
one active donor per runqueue, so per-entity storage was unnecessary and
increased sched_entity from 224 to 256 bytes on i386 with
CONFIG_SCHED_CORE=y.
One proxy-specific detail is that an execution-owner handoff can retain the
same donor. The scheduler then uses a synthetic put_prev_task()/
set_next_task() pair for balance handling. That reselect must not reset the
donor's core_sched_start, or service before the handoff would be discarded.
The implementation refreshes the baseline only when selecting a different
donor or when reactivating a task after a scheduling-class transition.
In non-proxy testing, the new predicate matched the existing
sum_exec_runtime predicate in 89,900 samples across HZ=100/250/1000 and
nice -10/0/+10 with zero mismatches. The proxy-enabled
CONFIG_SCHED_CORE=y scheduler objects and full bzImage also build with this
change. A focused force-idle test which splits one donor's service across two
execution owners is still pending; I will not claim owner-handoff runtime
coverage until that case runs.
Could you take a look at whether this task-clock and per-rq baseline approach
is reasonable? If so, I will complete the focused owner-handoff test and carry
the result into v5 before posting the updated series.
For reference, the complete current core-slice patch follows.
Thanks,
Hui
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ed08b287016a..0fea899d61c7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6469,7 +6469,8 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
}
static void
-set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
+set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,
+ bool reset_core_slice)
{
/* 'current' is not kept within the tree. */
if (se->on_rq) {
@@ -6502,6 +6503,10 @@ set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
}
se->prev_sum_exec_runtime = se->sum_exec_runtime;
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+ if (reset_core_slice && entity_is_task(se))
+ rq_of(cfs_rq)->core_sched_start = se->exec_start;
+#endif
}
static bool __dequeue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
@@ -14786,16 +14791,15 @@ static void rq_offline_fair(struct rq *rq)
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
static inline bool
-__entity_slice_used(struct sched_entity *se, int min_nr_tasks)
+__entity_slice_used(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se, int min_nr_tasks)
{
- u64 rtime = se->sum_exec_runtime - se->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
- u64 slice = se->slice;
+ u64 rtime = se->exec_start - rq->core_sched_start;
- return (rtime * min_nr_tasks > slice);
+ return (rtime * min_nr_tasks > se->slice);
}
#define MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE 2
-static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
+static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor)
{
if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
return;
@@ -14815,7 +14819,8 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
* if we need to give up the CPU.
*/
if (rq->core->core_forceidle_count && rq->cfs.h_nr_queued == 1 &&
- __entity_slice_used(&curr->se, MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
+ __entity_slice_used(rq, &donor->se,
+ MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
resched_curr(rq);
}
@@ -15049,7 +15054,7 @@ static int task_is_throttled_fair(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
return throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq);
}
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE: */
-static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr) {}
+static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor) {}
#endif /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
/*
@@ -15257,6 +15262,8 @@ static void set_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool first)
{
struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
bool throttled = false;
+ /* Keep service accumulated across a same-donor proxy reselect. */
+ bool reset_core_slice = !first || rq->donor != p;
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
unsigned long weight = NICE_0_LOAD;
bool on_rq = se->on_rq;
@@ -15271,7 +15278,7 @@ static void set_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool first)
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED) ||
!first || !cfs_rq->h_curr)
- set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
+ set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se, reset_core_slice);
/* ensure bandwidth has been allocated on our new cfs_rq */
throttled |= account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, 0);
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index bb6f87552220..b430092fc9ad 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1382,6 +1382,7 @@ struct rq {
unsigned int core_forceidle_seq;
unsigned int core_forceidle_occupation;
u64 core_forceidle_start;
+ u64 core_sched_start;
unsigned int core_pick_in_flight;
#endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-10 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-09 9:28 [PATCH v4 0/5] sched: Handle split scheduling and execution contexts in task ticks Hui Su
2026-09-09 9:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] sched: Dispatch task ticks for donor and execution classes Hui Su
2026-09-09 10:42 ` Hui Su
2026-09-09 17:43 ` Andrea Righi
2026-09-10 10:49 ` Hui Su
2026-09-09 9:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] sched/numa: Drive NUMA task tick from execution context Hui Su
2026-09-09 9:28 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] sched/cache: Drive cache " Hui Su
2026-09-09 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-10 10:53 ` Hui Su
2026-09-09 9:29 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] sched/rt: Fix RT watchdog accounting for proxy execution Hui Su
2026-09-09 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-10 10:54 ` Hui Su
2026-09-12 17:30 ` Hui Su
2026-09-09 9:29 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] sched/core: Fix donor slice accounting under " Hui Su
2026-09-10 10:55 ` Hui Su [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=20260910105514.2788543-1-sh_def@163.com \
--to=sh_def@163.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=connoro@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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®