From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jstultz@google.com,
soolaugust@gmail.com, suzhidao@xiaomi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Use revised wakeup rule only for running dl_server
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 22:58:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ahDDjv7rPuFYCzoN@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260522125833.264145-1-gmonaco@redhat.com>
Hi Garbiele,
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 02:58:33PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> Commit 14a857056466 ("sched/deadline: Use revised wakeup rule for
> dl_server") applies the revised wakeup rule to any server, as a result
> servers that are not running (dl_defer_running == 0) and start with a
> deadline overflow get enqueued and can boost tasks as if they were
> running, invalidating the defer rule and the documented state model.
>
> Apply the revised wakeup rule only for deferrable servers that are
> marked as running.
>
> Fixes: 14a857056466 ("sched/deadline: Use revised wakeup rule for dl_server")
> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Tested with ksched_football on a 16 CPUs machine: no regression (1s for
> check in and game over in 10s).
>
> Apparently the rt_stall sched_ext selftest does fail with tasks not
> always getting above 4% (almost always above 3%). But that seems to be
> the case also before this change on that machine.
Yeah the rt_stall selftest can be a bit flaky sometimes, as long as you get >3%
it's all good, maybe we should relax the min threshold a bit. In any case, I
tested this and it looks good om my side.
Tested-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 7db4c87df83b..e5a7701a8af7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1017,7 +1017,8 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) ||
> dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, rq_clock(rq))) {
>
> - if (unlikely((!dl_is_implicit(dl_se) || dl_se->dl_defer) &&
> + if (unlikely((!dl_is_implicit(dl_se) ||
> + (dl_se->dl_defer && dl_se->dl_defer_running)) &&
> !dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) &&
> !is_dl_boosted(dl_se))) {
> update_dl_revised_wakeup(dl_se, rq);
>
> base-commit: 8bc67e4db64aa72732c474b44ea8622062c903f0
> --
> 2.54.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-22 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-22 12:58 Gabriele Monaco
2026-05-22 20:58 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-05-25 6:19 ` Juri Lelli
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=ahDDjv7rPuFYCzoN@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=gmonaco@redhat.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=soolaugust@gmail.com \
--cc=suzhidao@xiaomi.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
Powered by JetHome