mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: <soolaugust@gmail.com>
Cc: zhidao su <suzhidao@xiaomi.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"John Stultz" <jstultz@google.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/proxy_exec: Handle sched_delayed owner in find_proxy_task()
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:13:14 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <766cb80f-0f38-4258-89e8-a07a6c065d88@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260303063007.125383-1-soolaugust@gmail.com>

Hello Zhidao,

On 3/3/2026 12:00 PM, soolaugust@gmail.com wrote:
> Right. I'll send a v2 that keeps the two checks as separate blocks
> (the conceptual distinction is worth preserving for when the blocked-
> owner series lands), but uses proxy_deactivate() for both:
> 
>     if (!READ_ONCE(owner->on_rq)) {
>         return proxy_deactivate(rq, donor);
>     }
>     if (owner->se.sched_delayed) {
>         /*
>          * Owner is in EEVDF deferred-dequeue: still physically on
>          * the runqueue but has called schedule(). A sched_delayed
>          * task never has blocked_on set, so the chain cannot be
>          * followed further. Deactivate the donor for now; proper
>          * handling will come with the blocked-owner series.
>          *
>          * XXX: Don't handle sched_delayed owners yet.
>          */
>         return proxy_deactivate(rq, donor);
>     }
> 
> The comment replaces the shared "XXX" with per-case rationale, making
> it clearer why they are handled differently once proper support lands.
> 
> Does that work, or would you prefer the two conditions be collapsed
> back into one?

I suppose we can expand on that comment but all of this will go away
soon(ish) anyways. Do we need to modify it?

I'll let John, Peter answer what they think is best. Personally, I
feel the current transient comment is good enough indicating that it'll
be handled with the upcoming changes similar to owner on remote CPU.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek


  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-03  6:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-02 10:12 soolaugust
2026-03-03  5:59 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-03  6:30   ` soolaugust
2026-03-03  6:43     ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-03-03 21:21       ` John Stultz

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=766cb80f-0f38-4258-89e8-a07a6c065d88@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.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=soolaugust@gmail.com \
    --cc=suzhidao@xiaomi.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®