Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96556-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:54:13 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, paulmck@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	peterz@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de,
	jpoimboe@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jgross@suse.com,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, bristot@kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
	glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com,
	mattst88@gmail.com, krypton@ulrich-teichert.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, David.Laight@aculab.com, richard@nod.at,
	mjguzik@gmail.com, jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com,
	raghavendra.kt@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
	konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/30] sched: handle preempt=voluntary under PREEMPT_AUTO
Message-ID: <Zeq2FUkU4nVSjY7I@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240213055554.1802415-27-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <65e3cd87.050a0220.bc052.7a29@mx.google.com>
 <87frx514jz.fsf@oracle.com>
 <12a20651-5429-43df-88d7-9d01ff6212c6@joelfernandes.org>
 <63380f0a-329c-43df-8e6c-4818de5eb371@paulmck-laptop>
 <d956c2e9-492d-4559-b9f9-400f37f523bf@joelfernandes.org>
 <87edclqt6a.fsf@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87edclqt6a.fsf@oracle.com>

On 07/03/24 19:49, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> writes:

..

> > Firstly, Maybe I misunderstood Ankur completely. Re-reading his comments above,
> > he seems to be suggesting preempting instantly for higher scheduling CLASSES
> > even for preempt=none mode, without having to wait till the next
> > scheduling-clock interrupt.
>
> Yes, that's what I was suggesting.
>
> > Not sure if that makes sense to me, I was asking not
> > to treat "higher class" any differently than "higher priority" for preempt=none.
>
> Ah. Understood.
>
> > And if SCHED_DEADLINE has a problem with that, then it already happens so with
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, so no need special treatment for higher class any
> > more than the treatment given to higher priority within same class. Ankur/Juri?
>
> No. I think that behaviour might be worse for PREEMPT_AUTO.
>
> PREEMPT_NONE=y (or PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y for that matter) don't
> quite have a policy around when preemption happens. Preemption
> might happen quickly, might happen slowly based on when the next
> preemption point is found.
>
> The PREEMPT_AUTO, preempt=none policy in this series will always
> cause preemption to be at user exit or the next tick. Seems like
> it would be worse for higher scheduling classes more often.
>
> But, I wonder what Juri thinks about this.

As I was saying in my last comment in the other discussion, I'm honestly
not sure, mostly because I'm currently fail to see what type of users
would choose preempt=none and have tasks scheduled with SCHED_DEADLINE
(please suggest example usecases, as I'm pretty sure I'm missing
something :). With that said, if the purpose of preempt=none is to have
a model which is super conservative wrt preemptions, having to wait one
tick to possibly schedule a DEADLINE task still seems kind of broken for
DEADLINE, but at least is predictably broken (guess one needs to account
for that somehow when coming up with parameters :).

Thanks,
Juri