From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] sched/kvm: Semantics-aware vCPU scheduling for oversubscribed KVM
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 11:37:00 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27c6a3f4-ca70-45ce-a684-fe8e9b33efd1@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CxZfFVk=dX3Koi_RUH6ppr_zc6fs3HHPaYkRGwV7h9L7w@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Wanpeng,
On 11/12/2025 10:24 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Problem Statement
>>> -----------------
>>>
>>> In overcommitted virtualization scenarios, vCPUs frequently spin on locks
>>> held by other vCPUs that are not currently running. The kernel's
>>> paravirtual spinlock support detects these situations and calls yield_to()
>>> to boost the lock holder, allowing it to run and release the lock.
>>>
>>> However, the current implementation has two critical limitations:
>>>
>>> 1. Scheduler-side limitation:
>>>
>>> yield_to_task_fair() relies solely on set_next_buddy() to provide
>>> preference to the target vCPU. This buddy mechanism only offers
>>> immediate, transient preference. Once the buddy hint expires (typically
>>> after one scheduling decision), the yielding vCPU may preempt the target
>>> again, especially in nested cgroup hierarchies where vruntime domains
>>> differ.
>>
>> So what you are saying is there are configurations out there where vCPUs
>> of same guest are put in different cgroups? Why? Does the use case
>> warrant enabling the cpu controller for the subtree? Are you running
>
> You're right to question this. The problematic scenario occurs with
> nested cgroup hierarchies, which is common when VMs are deployed with
> cgroup-based resource management. Even when all vCPUs of a single
> guest are in the same leaf cgroup, that leaf sits under parent cgroups
> with their own vruntime domains.
>
> The issue manifests when:
> - set_next_buddy() provides preference at the leaf level
> - But vruntime competition happens at parent levels
If that is the case, then NEXT_BUDDY is in-eligible as a result of its
vruntime being higher that the weighted averages of other entity.
Won't this break fairness?
Let me go look at the series and come back.
> - The buddy hint gets "diluted" when pick_task_fair() walks up the hierarchy
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-12 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-10 3:32 Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 01/10] sched: Add vCPU debooster infrastructure Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 02/10] sched/fair: Add rate-limiting and validation helpers Wanpeng Li
2025-11-12 6:40 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-12 6:44 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-13 13:36 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-13 12:00 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 03/10] sched/fair: Add cgroup LCA finder for hierarchical yield Wanpeng Li
2025-11-12 6:50 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-13 8:59 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 04/10] sched/fair: Add penalty calculation and application logic Wanpeng Li
2025-11-12 7:25 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-13 13:25 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 05/10] sched/fair: Wire up yield deboost in yield_to_task_fair() Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 5:16 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-10 5:16 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 06/10] KVM: Fix last_boosted_vcpu index assignment bug Wanpeng Li
2025-11-21 0:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-11-21 0:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-11-21 11:46 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 07/10] KVM: x86: Add IPI tracking infrastructure Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86/lapic: Integrate IPI tracking with interrupt delivery Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:32 ` [PATCH 09/10] KVM: Implement IPI-aware directed yield candidate selection Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 3:39 ` [PATCH 10/10] KVM: Relaxed boost as safety net Wanpeng Li
2025-11-10 12:02 ` [PATCH 00/10] sched/kvm: Semantics-aware vCPU scheduling for oversubscribed KVM Christian Borntraeger
2025-11-12 5:01 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-18 8:11 ` Christian Borntraeger
2025-11-18 14:19 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-11 6:28 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-12 4:54 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-12 6:07 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2025-11-13 5:37 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-13 4:42 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-13 8:33 ` Wanpeng Li
2025-11-13 9:48 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-13 13:56 ` Wanpeng Li
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=27c6a3f4-ca70-45ce-a684-fe8e9b33efd1@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.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®