Re: [PATCH] sched/eevdf: Update se->vprot in reweight_entity()

[K Prateek Nayak]

Hello Wang,

On 1/20/2026 6:01 PM, Wang Tao wrote:
> In the EEVDF framework with Run-to-Parity protection, `se->vprot` is an
> independent variable defining the virtual protection timestamp.
> 
> When `reweight_entity()` is called (e.g., via nice/renice), it performs
> the following actions to preserve Lag consistency:
> 1. Scales `se->vlag` based on the new weight.
> 2. Calls `place_entity()`, which recalculates `se->vruntime` based on
>    the new weight and scaled lag.
> 
> However, the current implementation fails to update `se->vprot`, leading
> to mismatches between the task's actual runtime and its expected duration.

I don't think that is correct. "vprot" allows for "min_slice" worth of
runtime from the beginning of the pick however, if we do a
set_protect_slice() after reweight, we'll essentially grant another
"min_slice" worth of time from the current "se->vruntime" (or until
deadline if it is sooner) which is not correct.

> 
> This patch fixes the issue by calling `set_protect_slice()` at the end of
> `reweight_entity()`. This ensures that a new, valid protection slice is
> committed based on the updated `vruntime` and the new weight, restoring
> Run-to-Parity consistency immediately after a weight change.
> 
> Fixes: 63304558ba5d ("sched/eevdf: Curb wakeup-preemption")
> Suggested-by: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Tao <wangtao554@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index e71302282671..bdd8c4e688ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3792,6 +3792,8 @@ static void reweight_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,

At the beginning of reweight_entity, we should first check if
protect_slice() for curr is true or not:

    bool protect_slice = curr && protect_slice(se);

>  		if (!curr)
>  			__enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
>  		cfs_rq->nr_queued++;
> +		if (curr)
> +			set_protect_slice(cfs_rq, se);


If protect_slice() was true to begin with, we should do:

    if (protect_slice)
        se->vprot = min_vruntime(se->vprot, se->deadline);

This ensures that if our deadline has moved back, we only protect until
the new deadline and the scheduler can re-evaluate after that. If there
was an entity with a shorter slice at the beginning of the pick, the
"vprot" should still reflect the old value that was calculated using
"se->vruntime" at the time of the pick.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek