From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@meta.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/deadline: Reset dl_server execution state on stop
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45e4dc7a-f261-46ec-8973-0fb8d1f7b0b9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aXkJ8_zLVSuToLxe@gpd4>
2026-01-27T18:55:02Z Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>:
> Unfortunately checking only runtime <= 0 isn't enough for the sched_ext DL
> server case:
>
> # Runtime of EXT task (PID 2025) is 0.000000 seconds
> # Runtime of RT task (PID 2026) is 4.990000 seconds
> # EXT task got 0.00% of total runtime
> not ok 2 FAIL: EXT task got less than 4.00% of runtime
>
> With the unconditional reset the EXT task gets 5% of the bandwidth. I'll
> add some debugging to figure out exactly what is happening.
Thanks for testing it. That's quite strange..
I run your test on a kernel without ext server, as far as I understand, the test is kinda indirectly checking also the fair server and that does not fail, right?
At least that's what I get on an arm64 machine with 128 CPUs.
After letting the test continue on failure I get:
# # Runtime of FAIR task (PID 22503) is 0.240000 seconds
# # Runtime of RT task (PID 22504) is 4.750000 seconds
# # FAIR task got 4.81% of total runtime
# ok 1 PASS: FAIR task got more than 4.00% of runtime
# TAP version 13
# 1..1
# # Runtime of EXT task (PID 22511) is 0.020000 seconds
# # Runtime of RT task (PID 22512) is 4.970000 seconds
# # EXT task got 0.40% of total runtime
# not ok 2 FAIL: EXT task got less than 4.00% of runtime
# TAP version 13
# 1..1
# # Runtime of FAIR task (PID 22518) is 0.240000 seconds
# # Runtime of RT task (PID 22519) is 4.750000 seconds
# # FAIR task got 4.81% of total runtime
# ok 3 PASS: FAIR task got more than 4.00% of runtime
# TAP version 13
# 1..1
# # Runtime of EXT task (PID 22525) is 0.000000 seconds
# # Runtime of RT task (PID 22526) is 4.990000 seconds
# # EXT task got 0.00% of total runtime
# not ok 4 FAIL: EXT task got less than 4.00% of runtime
# ok 24 rt_stall #
Mind that it's expected for the ext task to starve (I didn't apply the patches enabling the server).
After adding all your patches [1], also the ext passes the test (i.e. gets boosted just fine).
I tried disabling all CPUs but CPU0 and run the same test and it hung (bad sign), then I also enabled CPU1 (total 2 CPUs online) and again I see both fair and ext getting their share.
What am I missing here?
Thanks,
Gabriele
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260126100050.3854740-1-arighi@nvidia.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-28 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-23 16:16 Andrea Righi
2026-01-23 16:22 ` Juri Lelli
2026-01-26 14:20 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-01-26 16:30 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-26 16:56 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-01-26 21:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-27 8:52 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-01-27 14:18 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-27 16:00 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-01-27 18:54 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-28 9:50 ` Gabriele Monaco [this message]
2026-01-28 13:41 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-29 11:48 ` gmonaco
2026-01-29 17:32 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-30 7:30 ` Juri Lelli
2026-01-30 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 15:52 ` Juri Lelli
2026-01-30 16:25 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-30 16:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 16:46 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-30 22:12 ` [tip: sched/urgent] sched/deadline: Fix 'stuck' dl_server tip-bot2 for 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=45e4dc7a-f261-46ec-8973-0fb8d1f7b0b9@redhat.com \
--to=gmonaco@redhat.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.com \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.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=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--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®