Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103460-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:09:25 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Tobias Huschle <huschle@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add
 lag based placement)
Message-ID: <20240314110649-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20231213094854-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20231214021328-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <92916.124010808133201076@us-mta-622.us.mimecast.lan>
 <20240121134311-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <07974.124020102385100135@us-mta-501.us.mimecast.lan>
 <20240201030341-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <89460.124020106474400877@us-mta-475.us.mimecast.lan>
 <20240311130446-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <cf813f92-9806-4449-b099-1bb2bd492b3c@arm.com>
 <73123.124031407552500165@us-mta-156.us.mimecast.lan>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <73123.124031407552500165@us-mta-156.us.mimecast.lan>

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:45:57AM +0000, Luis Machado wrote:
> > On 3/11/24 17:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Are we going anywhere with this btw?
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > I think Tobias had a couple other threads related to this, with other potential fixes:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240228161018.14253-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com/
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240228161023.14310-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com/
> > 
> 
> Sorry, Michael, should have provided those threads here as well.
> 
> The more I look into this issue, the more things to ponder upon I find.
> It seems like this issue can (maybe) be fixed on the scheduler side after all.
> 
> The root cause of this regression remains that the mentioned kworker gets
> a negative lag value and is therefore not elligible to run on wake up.
> This negative lag is potentially assigned incorrectly. But I'm not sure yet.
> 
> Anytime I find something that can address the symptom, there is a potential
> root cause on another level, and I would like to avoid to just address a
> symptom to fix the issue, wheras it would be better to find the actual
> root cause.
> 
> I would nevertheless still argue, that vhost relies rather heavily on the fact
> that the kworker gets scheduled on wake up everytime. But I don't have a 
> proposal at hand that accounts for potential side effects if opting for
> explicitly initiating a schedule.
> Maybe the assumption, that said kworker should always be selected on wake 
> up is valid. In that case the explicit schedule would merely be a safety 
> net.
> 
> I will let you know if something comes up on the scheduler side. There are
> some more ideas on my side how this could be approached.

Thanks a lot! To clarify it is not that I am opposed to changing vhost.
I would like however for some documentation to exist saying that if you
do abc then call API xyz. Then I hope we can feel a bit safer that
future scheduler changes will not break vhost (though as usual, nothing
is for sure).  Right now we are going by the documentation and that says
cond_resched so we do that.

-- 
MST