Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] sched: Extended scheduler time slice

[Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@oracle.com>]

> On Feb 5, 2025, at 5:16 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 00:09:51 -0500
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:03 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:56:09 -0500
>>> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Here is the RFC I had sent that Peter is referring  
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I second the idea of a new syscall for this than (ab)using rseq
>>>> and also independence from preemption method. I agree that something
>>>> generic is better than relying on preemption method.  
>>> 
>>> So you are for adding another user/kernel memory mapped section?  
>> 
>> I don't personally mind that.
> 
> I'm glad you don't personally mind it. Are you going to help maintain
> another memory mapped section?
> 

The new syscall/API proposed was to provide per thread shared mapped 
area(shared structure) that are allocated from memory pages that are pinned. 
So the kernel could access it without the need for a copyin/copyout. 

The idea is that it would be helpful in places where we cannot take a page 
fault in the kernel codepath.


>> 
>>> And you are also OK with allowing any task to make an RT task wait longer?
>>> 
>>> Putting my RT hat back on, I would definitely disable that on any system
>>> that requires RT.  
>> 
>> Just so I understand, you are basically saying that you want this
>> feature only for FAIR tasks, and allowing RT tasks to extend time
>> slice might actually hurt the latency of (other) RT tasks on the
>> system right? This assumes PREEMPT_RT because the latency is 50us
>> right?
> 
> RT tasks don't have a time slice. They are affected by events. An external
> interrupt coming in, or a timer going off that states something is
> happening. Perhaps we could use this for SCHED_RR or maybe even
> SCHED_DEADLINE, as those do have time slices.
> 
> But if it does get used, it should only be used when the task being
> scheduled is the same SCHED_RR priority, or if SCHED_DEADLINE will not fail
> its guarantees.
> 
>> 
>> But in a poorly designed system, if you have RT tasks at higher
>> priority that preempt things lower in RT, that would already cause
>> latency anyway. Similarly, I would also consider any PREEMPT_RT system
> 
> And that would be a poorly designed system, and not the problem of the
> kernel.
> 
>> that (mis)uses this API in an RT task as also a poorly designed
>> system. I think PREEMPT_RT systems generally require careful design
>> anyway.  So the fact that a system is poorly designed and thus causes
>> latency is not the kernel's problem IMO.
> 
> Correct. And why I don't think this should be used for RT. It's SCHED_OTHER
> that doesn't have any control of the sched tick, where this hint can help.
> 
>> 
>> In any case, if you want this to only work on FAIR tasks and not RT
>> tasks, why is that only possible to do with rseq() + LAZY preemption
>> and not Prakash's new API + all preemption modes?
>> 
>> Also you can just ignore RT tasks (not that I'm saying that's a good
>> idea but..) in taskshrd_delay_resched() in that patch if you ever
>> wanted to do that.
>> 
>> I just feel the RT latency thing is a non-issue AFAICS.
> 
> Have you worked on any RT projects before?
> 
> -- Steve