Set quota on VM cause large schedule latency of vcpu

Virtual machine has cgroup hierarchies as follow:

               root
                |
              vm_tg
              (cfs_rq)
              /    \
            (se)    (se)
            tg_A    tg_B
          (cfs_rq)    (cfs_rq)
            /          \
          (se)          (se)
          a                b

'a' and 'b' are two vcpus of the VM.

We set cfs quota on vm_tg, and the schedule latency of vcpu(a/b) may become very large, up to more than 2S.
We use perf sched to capture the latency ( perf sched record -a sleep 10; perf sched lat -p --sort=max ) and the result is as follow:

Task | Runtime ms | Switches | Average delay ms | Maximum delay ms |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU 0/KVM| 260.261 ms | 50 | avg: 82.017 ms | max: 2510.990 ms |
...

We test the latest kernel and the result is the same.
We add some tracepoints, found the following sequence will cause the issue:

1) 'a' is only task of tg_A, when 'a' go to sleep (e.g. vcpu halt), tg_A is dequeued, and tg_A->se->load.weight = MIN_SHARES.

2) 'b' continue running, then trigger throttle. tg_A->cfs_rq->throttle_count=1

3) Something wakeup 'a' (e.g. vcpu receive a virq). When enqueue tg_A, tg_A->se->load.weight can't be updated because tg_A->cfs_rq->throttle_count=1

4) After one cfs quota period, vm_tg is unthrottled

5) 'a' is running

6) After one tick, when update tg_A->se's vruntime, tg_A->se->load.weight is still MIN_SHARES, lead tg_A->se's vruntime has grown a large value.

7) That will cause 'a' to have a large schedule latency.

We *rudely* remove the check which cause tg_A->se->load.weight didn't reweight in step-3 as follow and the problem disappear:

index 2f0a0be..348ccd6 100644
@@ -3016,9 +3016,6 @@ static void update_cfs_group(struct sched_entity *se)
        if (!gcfs_rq)
                return;
 
-       if (throttled_hierarchy(gcfs_rq))
-               return;
-

#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
        runnable = shares = READ_ONCE(gcfs_rq->tg->shares);

So do guys you have any suggestion on this problem ? Is there a better way fix this problem ?

Regards,
Longpeng(Mike)