Re: [libevl][PATCH 2/2] tests: sched-quota-accuracy: Add preempting FIFO thread
Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> Sat, 20 Jun 2026 14:40:29 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.xenomai |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 20.06.26 13:17, Philippe Gerum wrote: > Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> writes: > >> Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >>> >>> Test that higher-prio SCHED_FIFO threads do not run on the bill of >>> SCHED_QUOTA threads and that their accounting is not otherwise >>> disturbed. >>> >> >> This patch introduced a regression when determining the accuracy of the >> policy with respect to allotting threads the expected runtime budget: >> >> root@phytec-mira-evl:~# evl test sched-quota-accuracy >> sched-quota-accuracy: 494.0% >> >> The proper result would rather be close to the following: >> >> root@phytec-mira-evl:~# evl test sched-quota-accuracy >> sched-quota-accuracy: 99.1% > > Ok, I guess the fact that the calibration process does not factor in the > disruptor explains the full breakage we have with the accounting now: > > root@phytec-mira-evl:~# evl test sched-quota-accuracy -- -v > picked CPU1 for execution > CPU1: calibrating: 893547 loops/sec > CPU1: new thread group #0, quota sum is 10% > CPU1: done quota_thread[0], count=150399 > CPU1: done quota_thread[1], count=145636 > CPU1: done quota_thread[2], count=141552 > CPU1: 3 threads: cap=10%, effective=49.0%, disruption=49.6% > sched-quota-accuracy: 489.7% > > Which does not make any sense since the effective value should be capped > at 10% in the above case, compared to the nominal (full) report which > should be: > > root@phytec-mira-evl:~# evl test sched-quota-accuracy -- -v > picked CPU1 for execution > CPU1: calibrating: 899203 loops/sec > CPU1: new thread group #0, quota sum is 10% > CPU1: done quota_thread[0], count=26818 > CPU1: done quota_thread[1], count=26709 > CPU1: done quota_thread[2], count=35612 > CPU1: 3 threads: cap=10%, effective=9.9% > sched-quota-accuracy: 99.1% > > Dropping this patch from the -next branch for now. > I would rather recommend taking a trace and debugging the scheduler - this could very likely be remaining issue in the quota fix. Jan -- Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies Linux Expert Center