mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: <albin_yang@163.com>
Cc: <albinwyang@tencent.com>, <bsegall@google.com>,
	<chen.yu@linux.dev>, <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	<juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <kayracizmeci@gmail.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mgorman@suse.de>,
	<mingo@redhat.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, <vschneid@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/stats: Fix run_delay over-count for proxy-migrated blocked donors
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:41:51 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36f12b2f-9fc8-46e9-8312-536c918722f1@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261026133831.4111227-1-albin_yang@163.com>

Hello Wei,

On 10/26/2026 7:08 PM, albin_yang@163.com wrote:
> Hi Prateek,
> 
> Thanks - using is_blocked as the single indicator is certainly cleaner than
> piling up exceptions.
> 
> I rebuilt your diff so it applies cleanly and gave it a run. I'm afraid it
> does not work as-is in my testing

Thank you for testing the changes!

> two problems:
> 
> 1) sched_info_depart() now calls __sched_info_dequeue(), which no longer has
>    the "if (!last_queued) return;" guard. A blocking task has last_queued == 0
>    (sched_info_arrive() cleared it at switch-in), so delta becomes
>    rq_clock(rq) - 0, i.e. the whole uptime:
> 
>      cross-cpu: blocked 169.80 ms, run_delay delta 169047.52 ms
>      same-cpu:  blocked 168.70 ms, run_delay delta 185515.00 ms
> 
>    The control is affected too, so this is not proxy specific.

Ah! That is an oversight. I didn't realise arrive clears the last_queued
and yes, doing it unconditionally will account the full uptime.

> 
> 2) sched_info_enqueue() now arms only when t->is_blocked, leaving ordinary
>    runnable tasks with no counter at all - my sanity check went from +39 ms to
>    0.00 ms in every iteration, including the control. I do not think either
>    polarity works: is_blocked is still set during the real wakeup enqueue
>    (delayed sleeper: inside ttwu_runnable()'s is_blocked branch; donor: cleared
>    only later by ttwu_do_wakeup()). So it can gate the charge side, but the
>    arming side needs something already cleared at wakeup - task_is_blocked() or
>    sched_delayed.

Ack! I forgot task migrations. So based on a better look, all we have to
do i start accounting when the task becomes runnable again (p->is_blocked
is cleared) and don't account any time when the task is "on_rq" while
being blocked (p->is_blocked && p->on_rq).

> 
> The delayed reproducer shows 0, but that is easy to misread: it measures only a
> delta, and the bogus depart charge lands before the window. Its absolute
> run_delay is polluted too. (The 0.00 ms sanity figure is from the proxy
> reproducer, which carries that check.)
> 
> For reference, !sched_delayed && !task_is_blocked() gives 0.01 ms on the proxy
> case with the sanity check intact (+39 ms), and 0/20 on the delayed reproducer.
> 
> Happy to retest whatever you come up with.

So all things considered, I think the following should work unless I'm
terribly mistaken yet again :-) I've left my reasoning as comments:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/stats.h b/kernel/sched/stats.h
index ebe0a7765f98..c4c624deb25b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/stats.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/stats.h
@@ -239,6 +239,15 @@ static inline void psi_account_irqtime(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr,
 static inline void sched_info_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
 {
 	unsigned long long delta = 0;
+	/*
+	 * If a task is blocked (blocked donor, delayed dequeue task),
+	 * do not account the queued time as runnable. A task that is
+	 * blocking would have already cleared the "last_queued"
+	 * indicator from sched_info_arrive() when it got a chance to
+	 * run on the CPU.
+	 */
+	if (t->is_blocked)
+		t->sched_info.last_queued = 0;
 
 	if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
 		return;
@@ -290,7 +299,23 @@ static void sched_info_arrive(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
  */
 static inline void sched_info_enqueue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
 {
-	if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
+	/*
+	 * "t->is_blocked" is only cleared after the enqueue is done and
+	 * the task is woken up. If the task is blocked, update the
+	 * "last_queued" timestamp to that of last enqueue - if the task
+	 * is still blocked while it leaves the runqueue, this timestamp
+	 * is ignored and is cleared at sched_info_dequeue().
+	 *
+	 * To transition a task back to blocked after wakeup, it has to
+	 * run on the CPU and naturally reach a safe preemption point.
+	 * sched_info_arrive() will do the correct wait time accounting
+	 * based on the last "last_queued".
+	 *
+	 * Any movement of task after being marked not blocked will be
+	 * correctly captured as queued time at enqueue + dequeue
+	 * boundaries when "t->is_blocked" cleared.
+	 */
+	if (!t->sched_info.last_queued || t->is_blocked)
 		t->sched_info.last_queued = rq_clock(rq);
 }
 
---

That "t->is_blocked" check in sched_info_enqueue() may not be
necessary either but I've left it in there for now since I did my
quick testing with it.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek


  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-27  4:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-25 13:07 albin_yang
2026-10-25 19:28 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-26 13:53   ` albin_yang
2026-10-26 14:48     ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-26  5:46 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 13:38   ` albin_yang
2026-10-27  4:11     ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-10-27  6:11       ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-27  6:24         ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27  6:52           ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-27  9:45             ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27  9:53               ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-27  9:58                 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 12:09               ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-27 12:13                 ` Kayra Cizmeci

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=36f12b2f-9fc8-46e9-8312-536c918722f1@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=albin_yang@163.com \
    --cc=albinwyang@tencent.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=chen.yu@linux.dev \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kayracizmeci@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®