From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91ED93CF1E4; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 19:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790622383; cv=none; b=IE67onFTKUbGytAMtMQdHUy47gnaNh8gzzmf6/AzMiylhcwOQgn2I/D8cAGPnMTIXQmhKFIuaybWK6T6Qi362Q5ZVJbY31ehLOfo8M91AcqyTyH3CqgxOQxai2v4e9+Pcb67iMc8A3jwwvQqyOjtm7GbSNUwcLLED6J26TjQ5Po= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790622383; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7+gE61dcUY204w9DsN95+0EUEWwdapdMXBRbIeEpmKk=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=TBe6lxN0fvhETT7aNyCVwiv1l0O6y5kVutq/z0OO6FolNyAcoC5fusElFYX57SXBuzfUhRHIFyanZycJgYb2RNtoMw+rMrh+JM3VdI7bYDPchmLjd2SbvjfgK+0Xgg9EUDBeycmp86Skg5TDQk7JKddOz1Wx2RcYNiy5bPsH91Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mvXbHEBv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mvXbHEBv" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F08491F000FF; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 19:06:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790622382; bh=7+gE61dcUY204w9DsN95+0EUEWwdapdMXBRbIeEpmKk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=mvXbHEBvifPacnAPP31/nlYitgpV7GuQbOt3E3i0FrxRX4fuJ9KZ2k5S6EKrWIe7l qeRCR8iXlJYBt562YyVxhliPtv92T4ks781wBIy0cHefmyVODlnN2sYotvoN6W1VMB lOhgE1H6b8cQyCYb/7/B1JU398QO8yvwHSY0Xftxw4GhYtDbyyvQfM0X0I3VsgdbbO ZFeRVY5BPMge69h6Ie819emyweBm2oB5tSJeS9M4F8AZgOx2Mq1I1UbsTT50E9WO2V lCDq9ynzty70WUqkwVoMF/otxk4/7W3EvZsufhXciBAb9Wu7Edyg8Cxu8DGk8QumwK fKHXDMINBXA+g== Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:06:21 -1000 Message-ID: <4aed937b9a7376fd50c1e272f9e1f177@kernel.org> From: Tejun Heo To: Liang Luo Cc: David Vernet , Andrea Righi , Changwoo Min , sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Count cap-rejected local DSQ inserts in SCX_EV_SUB_REJECT In-Reply-To: <20260925070500.565561-1-luoliang@kylinos.cn> References: <20260925070500.565561-1-luoliang@kylinos.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, Liang. On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 03:05:00PM +0800, luoliang@kylinos.cn wrote: > The first two are counted but the last is not, so the number of tasks > diverted to the reject DSQ is missing from the counters exposed via > sysfs, scx_dump_state() and the scx_bpf_events() kfunc. I have nothing against adding the counter, but we don't count every path, so an uncounted branch arm isn't a reason by itself. What's the rationale for counting this one? > Fixes: 75a8c8202c91 ("sched_ext: Add reject DSQ for cap-rejected dispatches") This doesn't fix a bug. Can you drop the Fixes: tag? Thanks. -- tejun