From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
ziqianlu@bytedance.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 02/12] sched/core: Introduce rq_drop_lock()
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:59:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261107120206.858693648@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261107115913.261163891@infradead.org>
Currently rq_unpin_lock() serves a dual purpose, it pairs with both
rq_pin_lock() and rq_repin_lock(). That is:
rq_pin_lock()
rq_unpin_lock()
rq_repin_lock()
rq_unpin_lock()
In prepration of making the temporary drop and the final drop
distinct, this needs another function. Introduce and use
rq_drop_lock() for the temporary drop, like:
rq_pin_lock()
rq_drop_lock()
rq_repin_lock()
rq_unpin_lock()
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 8 ++++----
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 4 ++--
kernel/sched/ext/ext.c | 4 ++--
kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/rt.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/sched.h | 5 +++++
6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3910,7 +3910,7 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct t
* Our task @p is fully woken up and running; so it's safe to
* drop the rq->lock, hereafter rq is only used for statistics.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
p->sched_class->task_woken(rq, p);
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
}
@@ -5042,7 +5042,7 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct
* Nothing relies on rq->lock after this, so it's fine to
* drop it.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, &rf);
p->sched_class->task_woken(rq, p);
rq_repin_lock(rq, &rf);
}
@@ -5260,7 +5260,7 @@ struct balance_callback *splice_balance_
void __balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
if (rf)
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
do_balance_callbacks(rq, __splice_balance_callbacks(rq, false));
if (rf)
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
@@ -6929,7 +6929,7 @@ static inline void proxy_release_rq_lock
* to pick_again, so the callbacks will get re-established.
*/
zap_balance_callbacks(rq);
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
}
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static void __push_dl_task(struct rq *rq
* Nothing relies on rq->lock after this, so its safe to drop
* rq->lock.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
push_dl_task(rq);
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
}
@@ -2720,7 +2720,7 @@ static int balance_dl(struct rq *rq, str
* disabled avoiding further scheduler activity on it and we've
* not yet started the picking loop.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
pull_dl_task(rq);
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
}
--- a/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
@@ -3924,7 +3924,7 @@ static enum scx_dsp_verdict dispatch_pic
{
enum scx_dsp_verdict verdict;
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
verdict = dispatch_one(rq, prev);
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
@@ -3949,7 +3949,7 @@ static enum scx_dsp_verdict dispatch_cor
if (rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_IN_DISPATCH)
return SCX_DSP_NONE;
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
verdict = dispatch_one(rq, prev);
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -14907,7 +14907,7 @@ static int sched_balance_newidle(struct
* further scheduler activity on it and we're being very careful to
* re-start the picking loop.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(this_rq, rf);
sd = rcu_dereference_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
if (!sd)
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1611,7 +1611,7 @@ static int balance_rt(struct rq *rq, str
* disabled avoiding further scheduler activity on it and we've
* not yet started the picking loop.
*/
- rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+ rq_drop_lock(rq, rf);
pull_rt_task(rq);
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
}
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1991,6 +1991,11 @@ static inline void rq_unpin_lock(struct
lockdep_unpin_lock(__rq_lockp(rq), rf->cookie);
}
+static inline void rq_drop_lock(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
+{
+ rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
+}
+
static inline void rq_repin_lock(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
lockdep_repin_lock(__rq_lockp(rq), rf->cookie);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-07 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-07 11:59 [PATCH v2 00/12] sched: core-sched fixes and balancing Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 01/12] sched/core: Fix pick_next_task() self recursion Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 03/12] sched/core: Decompose update_rq_clock() Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 04/12] sched/core: Make __update_rq_clock() skip updates on UPDATED Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 05/12] sched/core: Abstract/fix rq_clock_start_loop_update() Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 06/12] sched/core: New rq_{pin,drop,repin,unpin}_lock() semantics Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 07/12] sched/core: Simplify/fix time updates Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 08/12] sched/core: Allow newidle for core-sched Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 09/12] sched/rt: Add early exit on balance path Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/12] sched/fair: Reflow pick_task_fair() / newidle Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 11/12] sched/fair: Push sched_balance_newidle() unlock down Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 12/12] sched: Remove sched_class::balance() Peter Zijlstra
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=20261107120206.858693648@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=ziqianlu@bytedance.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®