Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135889-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240403005930.1587032-1-qyousef@layalina.io> <CAKfTPtDB8D6bouxJN9q8gXqG+BQYcsrJYEodDWtOB2kQwPH53A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240404220500.dmfl2krll37znbi5@airbuntu> <CAKfTPtDP7if0gozSrnj+E_hH5xR-vpGAM2TwN4qWXcg5BtrEtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240405171653.boxbylrdak5fopjv@airbuntu> <20240407122700.ns7gknqwqkpjjyd4@airbuntu>
 <CAKfTPtBZao-Ry=sdAV=rtTwbxbEJmwb-_gNceSjV6u-6EXTY-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBZao-Ry=sdAV=rtTwbxbEJmwb-_gNceSjV6u-6EXTY-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:51:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CANDhNCq5HZvecSe9_9f7j5koY2VNdyjM_b3csL6=U1A_8J2ksw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/pi: Reweight fair_policy() tasks when inheriting prio
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yabin Cui <yabinc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:17=E2=80=AFAM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 14:27, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/05/24 18:16, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > All that to say that I think the weight is not applied on purpose.
> > > > This might work for your particular case but there are more changes=
 to
> > > > be done if you want to apply prio inheritance between cfs tasks.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, what about the impact of cgroup on the actual weight
> > > > and the inherited priority of a task ? If the owner and the waiter
> > > > don't belong to the same cgroup their own prio is meaningless... ta=
sk
> > > > nice -20 in a group with a weight equal to nice 19 vs a task nice 1=
9
> > > > in a group with a weight equals to nice -20
> > >
> > > That is on my mind actually. But I thought it's a separate problem. T=
hat has to
> > > do with how we calculate the effective priority of the pi_task. And p=
robably
> > > the sorting order to if we agree we need to revert the above. If that=
 is done
> >
> > Thinking more about it the revert is not the right thing to do. We want=
 fair
> > tasks to stay ordered in FIFO for better fairness and avoid potential
> > starvation issues. It's just the logic for searching the top_waiter nee=
d to be
> > different. If the top_waiter is fair, then we need to traverse the tree=
 to find
> > the highest nice value. We probably can keep track of this while adding=
 items
> > to the tree to avoid the search.
> >
> > For cgroup; is it reasonable (loosely speaking) to keep track of pi_cfs=
_rq and
> > detach_attach_task_cfs_rq() before the reweight? This seems the most
> > straightforward solution and will contain the complexity to keeping tra=
ck of
> > cfs_rq. But it'll have similar issue to proxy execution where a task th=
at
> > doesn't belong to the cgroup will consume its share..
>
> That's a good point, Would proxy execution be the simplest way to fix all=
 this ?

So, at the moment, in part. It ought to resolve the issue for
in-kernel mutexes (blocked tasks stay on rq, if blocked tasks are
selected to run we will instead run the runnable lock owner - thus it
works across scheduling classes), but it isn't tied into userland
futexes the way rt_mutexes are at this point.

Review and feedback on the series would be greatly appreciated!
(Nudge! Nudge! :)
-john