MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKfTPtAf5RrzZRSHtfK+r3QvnFQ-oM3+rJ-z5SB8T4+nUv1aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230309142825.GB273121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <ZAnvCGdlOrWbIC/o@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtADUas2QHZCQyu0ad-JTKRQ=PcsB=o7+PuJNVxHwAzkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZAs+zV0o9ShO7nLT@vingu-book> <02a08042-e7c4-464d-bc20-9ec4ccdab1ff@arm.com>
 <8c093661-7431-00d8-d703-b8f7a7c8e747@arm.com> <CAKfTPtBw9SJxVBcN1qff7jRzE81kXSjbc-rXD6goEBFiXEwbyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230314120726.GG1845660@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtBHocw4N-YMHeqfMj78Ro=aF8sJPanxVCN=tM70hr6r8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230314171607.GN2017917@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtBurhAxcykDWQHoSZ0aiokgK4jhamdh-F29643cL1jVsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtCra1QV32w1MZQY2SHVDv58m2MT2QwpHu0huJJ3B1wcCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5527ad0e-0f6d-fb4c-7505-a1c80192ed3b@arm.com> <CAKfTPtDfnersgtWQy7Qxq1x1Y6BZP-6K95gcQB1Mi0RaU3TpYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2ded6d7-6516-d193-cb23-1609aa03d324@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <b2ded6d7-6516-d193-cb23-1609aa03d324@arm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 16:32:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBL2nXB02bByX0_CWv7YHyvJeLzwm1hVnaEPUDy8vH=BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        rkagan@amazon.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 14:36, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 15/03/2023 11:21, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 11:15, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15/03/2023 09:42, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 08:18, Vincent Guittot
> >>> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 18:16, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 02:24:37PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>>>>
>
> [...]
>
> >> Isn't there an issue with this approach on asymmetric CPU capacity systems?
> >>
> >> We do a sync_entity_load_avg() in select_task_rq_fair()
> >> (find_energy_efficient_cpu() for EAS and select_idle_sibling() for CAS)
> >> to sync cfs_rq and se.
> >
> > ah yes, I forgot this point.
> > That being said, is it a valid problem for EAS based system ? I mean
> > we are trying to fix a vruntime comparison overflow that can happen
> > with a very long sleeping task (around 200 days) while only a very low
> > weight entity is always running  during those 200 days.
>
> True. Definitively very unlikely. But it's not only EAS, any asymmetric
> CPU capacity wakeup wouldn't have this check in this case.
>
> This dependency between sync_entity_load_avg() and the overflow
> detection would be very hard to spot though (in case
> sync_entity_load_avg() would get introduced in more common wakeup paths
> later).

fair enough