Re: [PATCH v2] sched/deadline: Make dl-server nohz full aware

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> The dl_server_timer() originally caused spurious IPIs on nohz_full
> cores, breaking isolation guarantees. While such IPIs cannot be observed
> on recent kernels, dl-server timers for tick-stopped isolated CPUs still
> fire unnecessarily on housekeeping cores.
> 
> The problem is that dl-servers are not coordinated with nohz_full tick
> state. Even when the tick stops on an isolated CPU, its dl-server timer
> continues to fire on housekeeping, wasting cycles and potentially
> affecting housekeeping CPU performance.
> 
> Fix by managing servers in sched_can_stop_tick():
> 
> - When RT tasks run with CFS/SCX tasks, start the appropriate server(s)
>   and keep the tick running
> - When only RT tasks remain, stop all servers and allow tick to stop
>   (except for >1 RR tasks which need the tick for round-robin)
> - When only CFS/SCX tasks remain, stop all servers before stopping tick
> 
> Introduce dl_servers_stop_all() to reduce duplication and abstract
> server management from core.c. Unify RT handling into one block that
> handles both RR and FIFO cases.
> 
> Note on SCX: While SCX is incompatible with isolcpus=domain, it does
> support nohz_full. The ext_server handling in this patch targets
> nohz_full configurations without domain isolation.
> 
> Fixes: 557a6bfc662c ("sched/fair: Add trivial fair server")
> Reported-by: David Haufe <dhaufe@simplextrading.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKJHwtOw_G67edzuHVtL1xC5Vyt6StcZzihtDd0yaKudW=rwVw@mail.gmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> ---

I was most confused with this IPI talk, since dl-server are strictly
per-cpu and was thinking you must be meaning timer interrupts.

But AFAICT the normal dl timers are ABS_HARD, and !PINNED, so the whole
NOHZ_FULL muck will move them around for no win. Oh well. Do we want the
below?

Anyway, yes, I think this is more or less the best we can hope for. In
the down-thread case where someone is running both FIFO and CFS tasks,
they get to keep the pieces, since that is violating NOHZ_FULL premise
anyway.

>  kernel/sched/core.c     | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  kernel/sched/sched.h    |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b905805bbcbe4..6d05ce9b1dfe6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1414,30 +1414,40 @@ static inline bool __need_bw_check(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
>  {
> -	int fifo_nr_running;
> -
>  	/* Deadline tasks, even if single, need the tick */
>  	if (rq->dl.dl_nr_running)
>  		return false;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to affect the
> -	 * actual RR behaviour.
> +	 * If there are RT tasks, we may need the tick (for >1 RR tasks),
> +	 * but we must also service lower-priority CFS/SCX tasks via dl-servers.
>  	 */
> -	if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
> -		if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
> -			return true;
> -		else
> +	if (rq->rt.rt_nr_running) {
> +		bool cfs_or_scx_queued = false;
> +
> +		if (rq->cfs.h_nr_queued) {
> +			dl_server_start(&rq->fair_server);
> +			cfs_or_scx_queued = true;
> +		}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT
> +		if (rq->scx.nr_running) {
> +			dl_server_start(&rq->ext_server);
> +			cfs_or_scx_queued = true;
> +		}
> +#endif
> +		if (cfs_or_scx_queued)
>  			return false;
> -	}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
> -	 * forced preemption between FIFO tasks.
> -	 */
> -	fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
> -	if (fifo_nr_running)
> +		/*
> +		 * Only RT tasks, no CFS/SCX. Stop servers to prevent spurious
> +		 * wakeups. Tick can stop for single RR or any FIFO, but must
> +		 * run for multiple RR (round-robin behavior).
> +		 */
> +		dl_servers_stop_all(rq);
> +		if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running > 1)
> +			return false;

I don't see why we would stop the dl-server in the false case. If we
don't stop the tick, nobody should be caring about those timers anyway.

It would make more sense to me to have dl_server_stop_all() only in this
true case.

>  		return true;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If there are no DL,RR/FIFO tasks, there must only be CFS or SCX tasks


diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 0663c00c41c0..5388bde93410 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ static void __dl_clear_params(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se);
  */
 static void task_non_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, bool dl_task)
 {
+	enum hrtimer_mode mode = HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD;
 	struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->inactive_timer;
 	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_se(dl_se);
 	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = &rq->dl;
@@ -459,8 +460,10 @@ static void task_non_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, bool dl_task)
 	dl_se->dl_non_contending = 1;
 	if (!dl_server(dl_se))
 		get_task_struct(dl_task_of(dl_se));
+	else
+		mode |= HRTIMER_MODE_PINNED;
 
-	hrtimer_start(timer, ns_to_ktime(zerolag_time), HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD);
+	hrtimer_start(timer, ns_to_ktime(zerolag_time), mode);
 }
 
 static void task_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, int flags)
@@ -1061,6 +1064,7 @@ static inline u64 dl_next_period(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
  */
 static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
 {
+	enum hrtimer_mode mode = HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD;
 	struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->dl_timer;
 	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
 	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
@@ -1112,7 +1116,9 @@ static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
 	if (!hrtimer_is_queued(timer)) {
 		if (!dl_server(dl_se))
 			get_task_struct(dl_task_of(dl_se));
-		hrtimer_start(timer, act, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD);
+		else
+			mode |= HRTIMER_MODE_PINNED;
+		hrtimer_start(timer, act, mode);
 	}
 
 	return 1;