From: liuwenfang <liuwenfang@honor.com>
To: 'Tejun Heo' <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: 'David Vernet' <void@manifault.com>,
'Andrea Righi' <arighi@nvidia.com>,
'Changwoo Min' <changwoo@igalia.com>,
'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@redhat.com>,
'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
'Juri Lelli' <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
'Vincent Guittot' <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
'Dietmar Eggemann' <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
'Ben Segall' <bsegall@google.com>, 'Mel Gorman' <mgorman@suse.de>,
'Valentin Schneider' <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while changing sched policy of the running task
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 07:07:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ac70bd4cd30418488e0355a4c0e7281@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d64c74118c6440f81bcf5a4ac6b9f00@honor.com>
Priority inheritance policy should be cared, eg., one SCX task can be
boosted to REAL-TIME while holding a mutex lock, and then restored while
releasing the lock. The value cpu_released is fixed when changing the
sched class of the running task.
Signed-off-by: Wenfang Liu liuwenfang@honor.com
---
kernel/sched/ext.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
index 98a05025b..bf4512908 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
@@ -2959,6 +2959,8 @@ static void flush_dispatch_buf(struct rq *rq)
dspc->cursor = 0;
}
+static void scx_maybe_cpu_acquire(struct rq *rq);
+
static int balance_one(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
{
struct scx_dsp_ctx *dspc = this_cpu_ptr(scx_dsp_ctx);
@@ -2970,18 +2972,7 @@ static int balance_one(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
rq->scx.flags |= SCX_RQ_IN_BALANCE;
rq->scx.flags &= ~(SCX_RQ_BAL_PENDING | SCX_RQ_BAL_KEEP);
- if (static_branch_unlikely(&scx_ops_cpu_preempt) &&
- unlikely(rq->scx.cpu_released)) {
- /*
- * If the previous sched_class for the current CPU was not SCX,
- * notify the BPF scheduler that it again has control of the
- * core. This callback complements ->cpu_release(), which is
- * emitted in switch_class().
- */
- if (SCX_HAS_OP(cpu_acquire))
- SCX_CALL_OP(SCX_KF_REST, cpu_acquire, rq, cpu_of(rq), NULL);
- rq->scx.cpu_released = false;
- }
+ scx_maybe_cpu_acquire(rq);
if (prev_on_scx) {
update_curr_scx(rq);
@@ -3187,7 +3178,23 @@ preempt_reason_from_class(const struct sched_class *class)
return SCX_CPU_PREEMPT_UNKNOWN;
}
-void switch_class(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
+static void scx_maybe_cpu_acquire(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ if (static_branch_unlikely(&scx_ops_cpu_preempt) &&
+ unlikely(rq->scx.cpu_released)) {
+ /*
+ * If the previous sched_class for the current CPU was not SCX,
+ * notify the BPF scheduler that it again has control of the
+ * core. This callback complements ->cpu_release(), which is
+ * emitted in scx_maybe_cpu_release().
+ */
+ if (SCX_HAS_OP(cpu_acquire))
+ SCX_CALL_OP(SCX_KF_REST, cpu_acquire, rq, cpu_of(rq), NULL);
+ rq->scx.cpu_released = false;
+ }
+}
+
+void scx_maybe_cpu_release(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
{
const struct sched_class *next_class = next->sched_class;
@@ -3881,11 +3888,20 @@ static void switching_to_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
static void switched_from_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
+ if (task_current(rq, p))
+ scx_maybe_cpu_release(rq, p);
+
scx_ops_disable_task(p);
}
static void wakeup_preempt_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,int wake_flags) {}
-static void switched_to_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) {}
+static void switched_to_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
+
+ if (task_current(rq, p))
+ scx_maybe_cpu_acquire(rq);
+}
int scx_check_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p, int policy)
{
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index e46becfed..ee0f35d47 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1738,7 +1738,7 @@ static inline void scx_rq_clock_invalidate(struct rq *rq)
WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags & ~SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
}
-extern void switch_class(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next);
+extern void scx_maybe_cpu_release(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next);
static inline void __put_prev_set_next_scx(struct rq *rq,
struct task_struct *prev,
@@ -1759,7 +1759,7 @@ static inline void __put_prev_set_next_scx(struct rq *rq,
if (next->sched_class == &ext_sched_class)
return;
- switch_class(rq, next);
+ scx_maybe_cpu_release(rq, next);
}
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT */
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-19 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-21 4:09 [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while RT task and SCX task are scheduled concurrently liuwenfang
2025-06-23 19:50 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-06-28 6:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] " liuwenfang
2025-07-17 21:38 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-07-20 9:20 ` liuwenfang
2025-07-20 9:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] " liuwenfang
2025-08-12 1:26 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-07-20 9:41 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while changing sched policy of the running task liuwenfang
2025-08-12 1:31 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-08-19 6:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] sched_ext: Fix pnt_seq calculation when picking the next task liuwenfang
2025-08-19 6:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while RT task and SCX task are scheduled concurrently liuwenfang
2025-08-19 7:07 ` liuwenfang [this message]
2025-08-19 7:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-08-19 8:47 ` 回复: " liuwenfang
2025-08-19 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-08-20 0:28 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-08-20 9:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-08-20 16:52 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-06-28 7:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while changing sched policy of the running task liuwenfang
2025-07-17 21:48 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-07-18 9:06 ` liuwenfang
2025-07-20 9:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] sched_ext: Fix pnt_seq calculation liuwenfang
2025-08-12 0:03 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-08-12 0:30 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-08-18 10:45 ` liuwenfang
2025-08-18 17:43 ` 'Tejun Heo'
2025-08-19 7:41 ` liuwenfang
2025-08-18 17:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-08-19 7:36 ` liuwenfang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0ac70bd4cd30418488e0355a4c0e7281@honor.com \
--to=liuwenfang@honor.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome