mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: <paulmck@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	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>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Apparent lost wakeups
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 15:59:36 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a5b8b01c-1020-4e0a-8d2c-a8f898036f5f@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261013101452.GG2009045@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hello Peter,

On 10/13/2026 3:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 09:58:25AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> 
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> index 0f63c30b4324..b37c771c41ad 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -11256,6 +11262,9 @@ void sched_change_end(struct sched_change_ctx *ctx)
>>                  if (ctx->running) {
>>                          /*
>>                          * If this was a class promotion; let the old class
>>                          * know it got preempted. Note that none of the
>>                          * switch*_from() methods know the new class and none
>>                          * of the switch*_to() methods know the old class.
>>                          */
>>                          if (sched_class_above(p->sched_class, ctx->class)) {
>>                                  rq->next_class->wakeup_preempt(rq, p, 0);
>>                                  rq->next_class = p->sched_class;
>>                          }
>>                          /*
>>                          * If this was a degradation in class; make sure to
>>                          * reschedule.
>>>                          */
>>>                         if (sched_class_above(ctx->class, p->sched_class))
>>>                                 resched_curr(rq);
>>> +               } else if (ctx->queued) {
>>> +                       /* Check if we need can preempt the current task. */
>>> +                       wakeup_preempt(rq, p, 0);
>>
>> Isn't what we have for ctx->running above what we also want in this case ?
>> Then sched_balance_newidle() will detect it with
>>
>>                  /* If a higher prio class was modified, restart the pick */
>>                 if (rq_modified_above(this_rq, &fair_sched_class))
>>                          pulled_task = -1;
>>
> 
> Ah, I'm maybe slowly starting to see the shape of this.

Essentially:

  /* rq->next_class starts as fair_sched_class */

  pick_next_task()
    /* Finishes ->pick_task() for stop, dl, rt */
    pick_task_fair()
      sched_balance_newidle()
        raw_spin_rq_unlock()
                                           activate_task(rq0, p) /* fair */ 
                                             /* p->on_rq but not curr */
                                             rq->next_class = fair_sched_class;

                                           __sched_setscheduler()
                                             /* Upgrades p to FIFO */
                                             sched_change_end()
                                               /* Does not change rq->next_class */
                                             rq_unlock()

        raw_spin_rq_lock()

        if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_queued)
          /* Skipped! No fair task */

        if (rq_modified_above(this_rq, &fair_sched_class))
          /* Skipped: rq->nex_class is still fair */

        return 0;
      return NULL; 

  pick_task_idle()
    return rq->idle;

  /* In __schedule() */
  clear_tsk_need_resched();

  /* Goes idle with rq->nr_running = 1 and no need_resched() */
                       

> Does something like so make sense?

Couple nits below.

> 
> That is, any task on the rq cares about promotion, only the current
> running task cares about demotion.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 047fbe8ef298..2a8bf562a769 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -11261,7 +11261,7 @@ void sched_change_end(struct sched_change_ctx *ctx)
>  		if (p->sched_class->switched_to)
>  			p->sched_class->switched_to(rq, p);
>  
> -		if (ctx->running) {
> +		if (ctx->queued) {

I think this branch should just call wakeup_preempt() to account
for p->sched_class == rq->next_class in case p is upgraded to
same class as rq->curr.

>  			/*
>  			 * If this was a class promotion; let the old class
>  			 * know it got preempted. Note that none of the
> @@ -11272,6 +11272,9 @@ void sched_change_end(struct sched_change_ctx *ctx)
>  				rq->next_class->wakeup_preempt(rq, p, 0);
>  				rq->next_class = p->sched_class;
>  			}
> +		}
> +
> +		if (ctx->running) {
>  			/*
>  			 * If this was a degradation in class; make sure to
>  			 * reschedule.

This looks correct. Upgrade keeps the task running and degrade
re-evaluates the selection.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek


  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-13 10:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-12 18:41 Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13  6:06 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  6:46   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  7:58     ` Vincent Guittot
2026-10-13  8:30       ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  8:36         ` Vincent Guittot
2026-10-13 10:14       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 10:29         ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-10-13 10:37           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 10:43             ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13 10:06     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 15:24 ` [PATCH] sched/core: Call wakeup_preempt() for queued tasks during class change K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13 16:45   ` Vincent Guittot
2026-10-13 17:57   ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13 19:55     ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13 20:06       ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-14  0:13         ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13 12:49 [BUG] Apparent lost wakeups Joel Fernandes
2026-10-13 14:00 ` K Prateek Nayak

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=a5b8b01c-1020-4e0a-8d2c-a8f898036f5f@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --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®