From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 DEA2F1DE2B2 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733268361; cv=none; b=FEB6lU5E2R13Bd2TPSwbbhfliGTCX+EzPXRtMskDLh4do72HyK6+dDu7njeXubuovthwVaB0uNVXPvZ+3G6Is1HGkcTxuh4eIqZOAkTgXL9ubstZ2+ZnPG2teQ+RpvgiopwTCSKVz/E5XbwFKrRdww4L6o+xlmUApprvtVHhj6E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733268361; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lQC4MFHSoxiqvUeIaAQTkF6rwbvRRxw4WaSOdoeyhbI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YgGhV7emV1QmImFQpmL5rb0T+I0CtHmvNyM4yJj+lE28s46se5O1fvUmeEN9AqlhOeItWD9EFF+7NlUi6Wvv9PxDN5gYRRzrTb7wUru67nVrGcsAYRFlNO/7TGC+ykzVIXwWoJbH+JYXa7hHatNQx67tRcMw7nDJ6ZNVE1sMWMY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=oXEexp1v; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="oXEexp1v" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4304CC4CEDC; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:26:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1733268361; bh=lQC4MFHSoxiqvUeIaAQTkF6rwbvRRxw4WaSOdoeyhbI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oXEexp1vF44/NLuw5FqnOm9oA9g8WH4sK/tH8WNbWHCw8lJhyAFdR3YPDVMBFWvBZ +2gHsRpRfErjT7OLHgHRbgRYg5Ze52ceVrepuR8O9ZyAGRjNMv0NXuHtyfki1vd2uC nOFzxdU5imfnyX5C5jMYSCXxgWVUJFNPw8b704XTk8xNJcnkO/Z5AIZAvBl0P3cKSz p5n8jqYOeq5kNEVFsD0gdLtYmgN2MiNMTkEczm6OZAqu5Z/jb+WOy3moCMFfWDz75A owfML29oiS5CzeRtEOnD2YYzmL4SOErd6kqK7mMgZ5o3quGA7h18/OGWFyEjtVaGzD nyjlHzySEDUBQ== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:26:00 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Changwoo Min Cc: void@manifault.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, changwoo@igalia.com, kernel-dev@igalia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] sched_ext: Manage the validity of scx_rq_clock Message-ID: References: <20241203142802.36305-1-changwoo@igalia.com> <20241203142802.36305-3-changwoo@igalia.com> 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241203142802.36305-3-changwoo@igalia.com> Hello, On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 11:27:59PM +0900, Changwoo Min wrote: > An rq clock becomes valid when it is updated using update_rq_clock() > and invalidated when the rq is unlocked using rq_unpin_lock(). Also, > after long-running operations -- ops.running() and ops.update_idle() -- > in a BPF scheduler, the sched_ext core invalidates the rq clock. Hmm... why are ops.running() or ops.update_idle() special? ie. How does sched_ext core determine what are long-running and what are not. Thanks. -- tejun