From: Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, mingo@redhat.com,
kernel-dev@igalia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched_ext: Manage the validity of scx_rq_clock
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:19:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a2bfe0d-3a1d-4917-bf10-33259c79a3bb@igalia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241118094100.GG39245@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Hello,
Thank you for the prompt feedback. I hope the following answers
can clarify most of your doubts.
On 24. 11. 18. 18:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:46:32AM +0900, Changwoo Min wrote:
>
>> The main reason to keep the second copy (rq->scx.clock) is that
>> a BPF scheduler can call scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() at almost any
>> time in any context, including any of sched_ext operations, BPF
>> timer callbacks, BPF syscalls, kprobes, and so on.
>
> If it's going to be a BPF wide thing, why is it presented as part of
> sched_ext ? That makes no sense.
There is a confusion here. scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() is for BPF
schedulers, not for random BPF programs. In almost all cases, it
will be used in the shced_ext operations, such as ops.running()
and ops.stopping(), to implement scheduling policies. However, if
BPF schedulers use other BPF features, such as BPF timer,
scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() also can be used. For example, scx_lavd uses
a BPF timer for periodic background processing; scx_lavd and
scx_flash use kprobe to trace futex system calls. Also, since
scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() relies on rq lock, it is not meaningful
outside of the BPF schedulers. Hence, it should be a part of
sched_ext.
>> Another approach would be to extend struct sched_clock_data (in
>> kernel/sched/clock.c) to store the update flag
>> (SCX_RQ_CLK_UPDATED). This would be the best regarding the number
>> of cache line accesses. However, that would be an overkill since
>> now sched_clock_data stores the sched_ext-specific data.
>> I thought it would be better to keep sched_ext specific data in
>> one place, struct scx_rq, for managibility.
>
> What's the purpose of that flag? Why can't BPF use sched_clock_local()
> and call it a day?
Let's suppose the following timeline:
T1. rq_lock(rq)
T2. update_rq_clock(rq)
T3. a sched_ext BPF operation
T4. rq_unlock(rq)
T5. a sched_ext BPF operation
T6. rq_lock(rq)
T7. update_rq_clock(rq)
For [T2, T4), we consider that rq clock is valid
(SCX_RQ_CLK_UPDATED is set), so scx_bpf_clock_get_ns calls during
[T2, T4) (including T3) will return the rq clock updated at T2.
Let's think about what we should do for the duration [T4, T7)
when a BPF scheduler can still call scx_bpf_clock_get_ns (T5).
During that duration, we consider the rq clock is invalid
(SCX_RQ_CLK_UPDATED is unset). So when calling
scx_bpf_clock_get_ns at T5, we call sched_clock() to get the
fresh clock.
I think the term `UPDATED` was misleading. I will change it to
`VALID` in the next version.
> Growing sched_clock_data shouldn't be a problem, it's only 24 bytes, so
> we have plenty free bytes there.
Alright. I will change the current implementation and extend
`struct sched_clock_data` to store the `VALID` flag in the next
version.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-19 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-16 16:01 [PATCH 0/5] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched_ext: Implement scx_rq_clock_update/stale() Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 16:01 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched_ext: Manage the validity of scx_rq_clock Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-17 15:46 ` Changwoo Min
2024-11-18 9:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-19 1:19 ` Changwoo Min [this message]
2024-11-19 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-19 15:57 ` Changwoo Min
2024-11-27 0:41 ` Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 16:01 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-17 15:48 ` Changwoo Min
2024-11-18 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-16 16:01 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched_ext: Add scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() for BPF scheduler Changwoo Min
2024-11-16 16:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched_ext: Replace bpf_ktime_get_ns() to scx_bpf_clock_get_ns() Changwoo Min
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=9a2bfe0d-3a1d-4917-bf10-33259c79a3bb@igalia.com \
--to=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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®