From: Kayra Cizmeci <kayracizmeci@gmail.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: albin_yang@163.com, albinwyang@tencent.com, bsegall@google.com,
chen.yu@linux.dev, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mgorman@suse.de, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
vschneid@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/stats: Fix run_delay over-count for proxy-migrated blocked donors
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:52:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auBEeDRRFKZOGlZA@scheduler.schedules> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ac4564e-08fb-4639-a89e-a2ad54cee3f7@amd.com>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 11:54:35AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Kayra,
>
> On 10/27/2026 11:41 AM, Kayra Cizmeci wrote:
> >> So all things considered, I think the following should work unless I'm
> >> terribly mistaken yet again :-) I've left my reasoning as comments:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/stats.h b/kernel/sched/stats.h
> >> index ebe0a7765f98..c4c624deb25b 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/stats.h
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/stats.h
> >> @@ -239,6 +239,15 @@ static inline void psi_account_irqtime(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr,
> >> static inline void sched_info_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
> >> {
> >> unsigned long long delta = 0;
> >> + /*
> >> + * If a task is blocked (blocked donor, delayed dequeue task),
> >> + * do not account the queued time as runnable. A task that is
> >> + * blocking would have already cleared the "last_queued"
> >> + * indicator from sched_info_arrive() when it got a chance to
> >> + * run on the CPU.
> >> + */
> >> + if (t->is_blocked)
> >> + t->sched_info.last_queued = 0;
> >>
> >> if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
> >> return;
> >> @@ -290,7 +299,23 @@ static void sched_info_arrive(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
> >> */
> >> static inline void sched_info_enqueue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
> >> {
> >> - if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
> >> + /*
> >> + * "t->is_blocked" is only cleared after the enqueue is done and
> >> + * the task is woken up. If the task is blocked, update the
> >> + * "last_queued" timestamp to that of last enqueue - if the task
> >> + * is still blocked while it leaves the runqueue, this timestamp
> >> + * is ignored and is cleared at sched_info_dequeue().
> >> + *
> >> + * To transition a task back to blocked after wakeup, it has to
> >> + * run on the CPU and naturally reach a safe preemption point.
> >> + * sched_info_arrive() will do the correct wait time accounting
> >> + * based on the last "last_queued".
> >> + *
> >> + * Any movement of task after being marked not blocked will be
> >> + * correctly captured as queued time at enqueue + dequeue
> >> + * boundaries when "t->is_blocked" cleared.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!t->sched_info.last_queued || t->is_blocked)
> >> t->sched_info.last_queued = rq_clock(rq);
> >> }
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> That "t->is_blocked" check in sched_info_enqueue() may not be
> >> necessary either but I've left it in there for now since I did my
> >> quick testing with it.
> >
> >
> > Hi Prateek,
> >
> > IMO too doing this with is_blocked would be cleaner.
> >
> > But I think this not works on a case where a donor is in a different CPU
> > from its owner, like:
> >
> > A holds the mutex M in CPU0, B is the waiter and its on CPU1.
> >
> > proxy_migrate_task() gets B to CPU0.
> >> After that, A suddenly wants to goto CPU1. And it goes.
> > Now B goes back to its home CPU next to A.
> >
> > Now in here, timer starts.
> >
> > And suddenly A drops the mutex. Now B is not is_blocked.
> >
> > Because B is back to its home CPU, there is no dequeue.
> > Even if there was B is not is_blocked so timer wouldn't be reset.
> >
> > Normally we need to add the time that task waited for itself.
> > But in this case we add the time task waited for its mutex + for itself.
> >
> > Or am I missssssing something?
>
> Indeed. That is possible and can probably be fixed by doing a
> sched_info_enqueue() in proxy_needs_return() for
> task_cpu(p) == p->wake_cpu case like:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 04b62c16fa8c..3d261a4e5b0b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3838,8 +3838,11 @@ static inline bool proxy_needs_return(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> * will not apply. But if it did, this check is the safe way around
> * and would migrate.
> */
> - if (task_cpu(p) == p->wake_cpu)
> + if (task_cpu(p) == p->wake_cpu) {
> + /* Begin wait time accounting before marking !is_blocked. */
> + sched_info_enqueue(rq, p);
> return false;
> + }
>
> scoped_guard(raw_spinlock, &p->blocked_lock) {
> /* Task is waking up; clear any blocked_on relationship */
> ---
>
> Not sure if this solution is ugly or not for calling
> sched_info_enqueue() out of the enqueue path :-)
I think this fixes the issue. BTW I think this should skip curr, no?
On a case like this:
C holds M1 in CPU0, D waits that mutex in CPU1. A holds mutex M2 in
CPU2. B is the working task on CPU1 but it wants mutex M2 and we enter
__schedule(). B gets is_blocked. D gets chosen. We open the rq lock to
get D to CPU0. While this happens A drops the mutex and wakes up B.
we enter ttwu_runnable() and B is still curr. And we start the timer.
Or am I MISSSING something?
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prateek
>
Thanks,
Kayra
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-27 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-25 13:07 albin_yang
2026-10-25 19:28 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-26 13:53 ` albin_yang
2026-10-26 14:48 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-26 5:46 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 13:38 ` albin_yang
2026-10-27 4:11 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 6:11 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-27 6:24 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 6:52 ` Kayra Cizmeci [this message]
2026-10-27 9:45 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 9:53 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-27 9:58 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-27 12:13 ` Kayra Cizmeci
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=auBEeDRRFKZOGlZA@scheduler.schedules \
--to=kayracizmeci@gmail.com \
--cc=albin_yang@163.com \
--cc=albinwyang@tencent.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chen.yu@linux.dev \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.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®