Re: [PATCH] sched/pi: Reweight fair_policy() tasks when inheriting prio

[John Stultz]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:17 AM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 14:27, Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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... task
> > > > nice -20 in a group with a weight equal to nice 19 vs a task nice 19
> > > > in a group with a weight equals to nice -20
> > >
> > > That is on my mind actually. But I thought it's a separate problem. That has to
> > > do with how we calculate the effective priority of the pi_task. And probably
> > > 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 need 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 track of
> > cfs_rq. But it'll have similar issue to proxy execution where a task that
> > 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