From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@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>,
"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Andrea Righi" <arighi@nvidia.com>,
"Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"David Haufe" <dhaufe@simplextrading.com>,
"Cao Ruichuang" <create0818@163.com>,
"Furkan Çalışkan" <frn1furkan10@gmail.com>,
ionut.nechita@windriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/deadline: Make dl-server nohz full aware
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 17:11:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar54JPCpCZTITK6B@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261001142735.GT2009045@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 01/10/26 16:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > The dl_server_timer() originally caused spurious IPIs on nohz_full
> > cores, breaking isolation guarantees. While such IPIs cannot be observed
> > on recent kernels, dl-server timers for tick-stopped isolated CPUs still
> > fire unnecessarily on housekeeping cores.
> >
> > The problem is that dl-servers are not coordinated with nohz_full tick
> > state. Even when the tick stops on an isolated CPU, its dl-server timer
> > continues to fire on housekeeping, wasting cycles and potentially
> > affecting housekeeping CPU performance.
> >
> > Fix by managing servers in sched_can_stop_tick():
> >
> > - When RT tasks run with CFS/SCX tasks, start the appropriate server(s)
> > and keep the tick running
> > - When only RT tasks remain, stop all servers and allow tick to stop
> > (except for >1 RR tasks which need the tick for round-robin)
> > - When only CFS/SCX tasks remain, stop all servers before stopping tick
> >
> > Introduce dl_servers_stop_all() to reduce duplication and abstract
> > server management from core.c. Unify RT handling into one block that
> > handles both RR and FIFO cases.
> >
> > Note on SCX: While SCX is incompatible with isolcpus=domain, it does
> > support nohz_full. The ext_server handling in this patch targets
> > nohz_full configurations without domain isolation.
> >
> > Fixes: 557a6bfc662c ("sched/fair: Add trivial fair server")
> > Reported-by: David Haufe <dhaufe@simplextrading.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKJHwtOw_G67edzuHVtL1xC5Vyt6StcZzihtDd0yaKudW=rwVw@mail.gmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> > ---
>
> I was most confused with this IPI talk, since dl-server are strictly
> per-cpu and was thinking you must be meaning timer interrupts.
>
> But AFAICT the normal dl timers are ABS_HARD, and !PINNED, so the whole
> NOHZ_FULL muck will move them around for no win. Oh well. Do we want the
> below?
The below makes sense to me.
> Anyway, yes, I think this is more or less the best we can hope for. In
> the down-thread case where someone is running both FIFO and CFS tasks,
> they get to keep the pieces, since that is violating NOHZ_FULL premise
> anyway.
I think what Ionut lamented wrt the behavior before dl-servers is that
the tick was stopped if you had an always running FIFO task (even if a
CFS was starving). With the below we start the dl-server, but we also
keep the tick active and that unnecessarily perturbs the FIFO task,
since maybe we don't need it as the dl-server has its own timer set.
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index b905805bbcbe4..6d05ce9b1dfe6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -1414,30 +1414,40 @@ static inline bool __need_bw_check(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> >
> > bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> > {
> > - int fifo_nr_running;
> > -
> > /* Deadline tasks, even if single, need the tick */
> > if (rq->dl.dl_nr_running)
> > return false;
> >
> > /*
> > - * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to affect the
> > - * actual RR behaviour.
> > + * If there are RT tasks, we may need the tick (for >1 RR tasks),
> > + * but we must also service lower-priority CFS/SCX tasks via dl-servers.
> > */
> > - if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
> > - if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
> > - return true;
> > - else
> > + if (rq->rt.rt_nr_running) {
> > + bool cfs_or_scx_queued = false;
> > +
> > + if (rq->cfs.h_nr_queued) {
> > + dl_server_start(&rq->fair_server);
> > + cfs_or_scx_queued = true;
> > + }
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT
> > + if (rq->scx.nr_running) {
> > + dl_server_start(&rq->ext_server);
> > + cfs_or_scx_queued = true;
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > + if (cfs_or_scx_queued)
> > return false;
> > - }
> >
> > - /*
> > - * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
> > - * forced preemption between FIFO tasks.
> > - */
> > - fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
> > - if (fifo_nr_running)
> > + /*
> > + * Only RT tasks, no CFS/SCX. Stop servers to prevent spurious
> > + * wakeups. Tick can stop for single RR or any FIFO, but must
> > + * run for multiple RR (round-robin behavior).
> > + */
> > + dl_servers_stop_all(rq);
> > + if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running > 1)
> > + return false;
>
> I don't see why we would stop the dl-server in the false case. If we
> don't stop the tick, nobody should be caring about those timers anyway.
>
> It would make more sense to me to have dl_server_stop_all() only in this
> true case.
OK.
> > return true;
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > * If there are no DL,RR/FIFO tasks, there must only be CFS or SCX tasks
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 0663c00c41c0..5388bde93410 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ static void __dl_clear_params(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se);
> */
> static void task_non_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, bool dl_task)
> {
> + enum hrtimer_mode mode = HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD;
> struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->inactive_timer;
> struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_se(dl_se);
> struct dl_rq *dl_rq = &rq->dl;
> @@ -459,8 +460,10 @@ static void task_non_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, bool dl_task)
> dl_se->dl_non_contending = 1;
> if (!dl_server(dl_se))
> get_task_struct(dl_task_of(dl_se));
> + else
> + mode |= HRTIMER_MODE_PINNED;
>
> - hrtimer_start(timer, ns_to_ktime(zerolag_time), HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD);
> + hrtimer_start(timer, ns_to_ktime(zerolag_time), mode);
> }
>
> static void task_contending(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, int flags)
> @@ -1061,6 +1064,7 @@ static inline u64 dl_next_period(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> */
> static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> {
> + enum hrtimer_mode mode = HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD;
> struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->dl_timer;
> struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
> @@ -1112,7 +1116,9 @@ static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> if (!hrtimer_is_queued(timer)) {
> if (!dl_server(dl_se))
> get_task_struct(dl_task_of(dl_se));
> - hrtimer_start(timer, act, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD);
> + else
> + mode |= HRTIMER_MODE_PINNED;
> + hrtimer_start(timer, act, mode);
> }
>
> return 1;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-01 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 9:13 Juri Lelli
2026-05-13 11:13 ` Andrea Righi
2026-05-15 15:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-07-21 12:18 ` Ionut Nechita (Wind River)
2026-09-24 17:02 ` Ionut Nechita (Wind River)
2026-09-25 15:07 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-01 12:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-10-01 13:49 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-01 14:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-01 14:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-01 15:25 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-01 15:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-01 15:11 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2026-10-02 9:20 ` 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=ar54JPCpCZTITK6B@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
--to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=create0818@163.com \
--cc=dhaufe@simplextrading.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=frn1furkan10@gmail.com \
--cc=ionut.nechita@windriver.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.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®