From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Francesco Nigro <nigro.fra@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"Mike Galbraith" <efault@gmx.de>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] sched: ITMT + DELAY_DEQUEUE: woken task waits ~1 ms behind another task on the preferred CPU while allowed CPUs are idle
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 14:04:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99366157-08b9-411f-b180-fa61bc5f5002@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261105081245.81773-1-nigro.fra@gmail.com>
Hello Francesco,
On 11/5/2026 1:42 PM, Francesco Nigro wrote:
> [You don't often get email from nigro.fra@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> On Thu, 2026-11-05 at 09:41 +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> Hello Francesco,
>
> Hi Prateek,
>
> thanks a lot for looking into this, and for the patch.
>
> This is a corporate machine, so I can't promise I will be able to boot
> a patched kernel on it, but I will try.
No worries I'll try it on my end over the coming weekend.
>> Since you say ITMT disabled actually solves this issue, I suspect there is a
>> race between the idle balancer moving the delayed task to a preferred CPU vs
>> a wakeup that also lands on the same CPU.
>
> perf sched shows a race like that, but the task moved is the running
> one, by active balance. One example (perf sched timehist, trimmed; ms):
>
> .654334 [6] worker 482 awakened: migration/7
> .654337 [6] worker 482 blocks
I'm having a hard time understanding why asym_active_balance() would
trigger before worker 482 blocks - also I'm assuming at this point
482 is the only task on the CPU so it shouldn't get delayed since
single task on CPU is always eligible.
> .654338 [7] worker 481 preempted while running
> .654341 [7] migration/7 migrated: worker 481 cpu 7 => 6
> .654341 [2] waker awakened: worker 482
> .655572 [6] worker 482 ran 1.006 after 0.224 sch delay
>
> Does your change cover the active balance path too?
I think I was missing the other part of allowing a delayed task to
migrate with the following diff:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index b8c26a6ca82d..71dd82394006 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11133,14 +11133,16 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
/*
* We do not migrate tasks that are:
- * 1) delayed dequeued unless we migrate load, or
+ * 1) delayed dequeued unless we migrate load / migration to idle CPU, or
* 2) target cfs_rq is in throttled hierarchy, or
* 3) cannot be migrated to this CPU due to cpus_ptr, or
* 4) running (obviously), or
* 5) are cache-hot on their current CPU, or
* 6) are blocked on mutexes (if SCHED_PROXY_EXEC is enabled)
*/
- if ((p->se.sched_delayed) && (env->migration_type != migrate_load))
+ if ((p->se.sched_delayed) &&
+ (!(env->flags & LBF_FIRST_MIGRATION) &&
+ env->migration_type != migrate_load))
return 0;
if (lb_throttled_hierarchy(p, env->dst_cpu))
---
This should allow for an idle CPU to see a delayed task and block it
even if it is has not yet hit the "migrate_load" threshold but it
still doesn't explain why the active balance gets triggered before
blocking.
>> So at this point, I would have expected B to have already been
>> moved by a newidle / idle balance.
>
> Not here: in 270 of 286 waits of 0.5 ms or more, neither worker left
> CPU 6, and CPUs 4, 5 and 7 were idle for at least 98 % of the wait.
>
> Trace summary and excerpt:
> https://github.com/franz1981/itmt-delay-dequeue-repro/tree/827b6b2
Thank you! Give me a wee bit more time to trace this path and I'll get
back to you by next week. Thank you again for all the data.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-05 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-03 15:46 Francesco Nigro
2026-11-03 17:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2026-11-03 23:33 ` Francesco Nigro
2026-11-04 3:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2026-11-04 22:06 ` Francesco Nigro
2026-11-05 4:11 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-11-05 8:12 ` Francesco Nigro
2026-11-05 8:34 ` K Prateek Nayak [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=99366157-08b9-411f-b180-fa61bc5f5002@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nigro.fra@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--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®