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 1/3] sched_ext: Fix pnt_seq calculation when picking the next task
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 06:52:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <228ebd9e6ed3437996dffe15735a9caa@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <814bebd2ad844b08993836fd8e7274b8@honor.com>
Now as the rq->scx.pnt_seq is only incremented when the target CPU
switches from one SCX task to one non-SCX task, the pair CPU would
not exit the busy-wait state reasonably in scx_pair.
In scx_pair, rq->scx.pnt_seq is introduced to improve exclusion
guarantees. The invoking CPU calls scx_bpf_kick_cpu() with
SCX_KICK_WAIT and enters the busy-wait state. It should exit this
state once the target CPU has entered the rescheduling path with
rq->scx.pnt_seq incremented.
So, pnt_seq calculation is moved to put_prev_set_next_task(), it
will be incremented for any task switches on the target CPU, then
the invoking CPU can exit the busy-wait state properly.
Signed-off-by: Wenfang Liu liuwenfang@honor.com
---
kernel/sched/ext.c | 10 +---------
kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/sched.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
index f5133249f..ba99739d7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
@@ -3191,14 +3191,6 @@ static void switch_class(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
{
const struct sched_class *next_class = next->sched_class;
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- /*
- * Pairs with the smp_load_acquire() issued by a CPU in
- * kick_cpus_irq_workfn() who is waiting for this CPU to perform a
- * resched.
- */
- smp_store_release(&rq->scx.pnt_seq, rq->scx.pnt_seq + 1);
-#endif
if (!static_branch_unlikely(&scx_ops_cpu_preempt))
return;
@@ -5966,7 +5958,7 @@ static void kick_cpus_irq_workfn(struct irq_work *irq_work)
if (cpu != cpu_of(this_rq)) {
/*
* Pairs with smp_store_release() issued by this CPU in
- * switch_class() on the resched path.
+ * __put_prev_set_next_scx() on the resched path.
*
* We busy-wait here to guarantee that no other task can
* be scheduled on our core before the target CPU has
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 0fb9bf995..21214b3fa 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8885,7 +8885,7 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
if (prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
goto simple;
- __put_prev_set_next_dl_server(rq, prev, p);
+ __put_prev_set_next(rq, prev, p);
/*
* Because of the set_next_buddy() in dequeue_task_fair() it is rather
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 47972f34e..435de61c4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1738,12 +1738,32 @@ static inline void scx_rq_clock_invalidate(struct rq *rq)
WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags & ~SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
}
+static inline void __put_prev_set_next_scx(struct rq *rq,
+ struct task_struct *prev,
+ struct task_struct *next)
+{
+ if (!scx_enabled())
+ return;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ /*
+ * Pairs with the smp_load_acquire() issued by a CPU in
+ * kick_cpus_irq_workfn() who is waiting for this CPU to perform a
+ * resched.
+ */
+ smp_store_release(&rq->scx.pnt_seq, rq->scx.pnt_seq + 1);
+#endif
+}
+
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT */
#define scx_enabled() false
#define scx_switched_all() false
static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock) {}
static inline void scx_rq_clock_invalidate(struct rq *rq) {}
+static inline void __put_prev_set_next_scx(struct rq *rq,
+ struct task_struct *prev,
+ struct task_struct *next) {}
#endif /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT */
/*
@@ -2457,13 +2477,21 @@ __put_prev_set_next_dl_server(struct rq *rq,
rq->dl_server = NULL;
}
+static inline void __put_prev_set_next(struct rq *rq,
+ struct task_struct *prev,
+ struct task_struct *next)
+{
+ __put_prev_set_next_dl_server(rq, prev, next);
+ __put_prev_set_next_scx(rq, prev, next);
+}
+
static inline void put_prev_set_next_task(struct rq *rq,
struct task_struct *prev,
struct task_struct *next)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(rq->curr != prev);
- __put_prev_set_next_dl_server(rq, prev, next);
+ __put_prev_set_next(rq, prev, next);
if (next == prev)
return;
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-19 6:52 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 ` liuwenfang [this message]
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 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while changing sched policy of the running task liuwenfang
2025-08-19 7:47 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] sched_ext: Fix cpu_released while RT task and SCX task are scheduled concurrently 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=228ebd9e6ed3437996dffe15735a9caa@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