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 6ABFC360
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon,  6 Jan 2025 18:53:22 +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=1736189602; cv=none; b=YAkmcjfF5YdZSjPyZeb4guM9a2gQQxLqUebbpGP6sfTJXuAp6cUBxdcpxNB45FWOzjsllI8tkKgXH09z+/ZTMJI/Vd4DsMXnka9/AEFjNhtl2in7/HRvIH56jIq68oO8TyRXeQe2NDG2dXG1qfbuouCBI94Qlbp7bJbLyLCL4sI=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1736189602; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=+kgplTFhDtd5yMs3IoFAZ1TNsBu/UL1Jv2lT29yIS90=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ceddpzvoGbu5bh95MTedyZx9yRm0sPosGKdCunpWnYDvPdTk/enTYGAxRD9uYnQcwW2mYfZxfoB4gKcQ05iIiY57XF30iRefDIt/t4SLnBS4r6EhA/TH9eYRn/NumbI5W/SYnW9gJ+ubaNHA7r2YC5nDUsvRpx5X3yda/yxjt9c=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fUclwJcF; 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="fUclwJcF"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD802C4CED2;
	Mon,  6 Jan 2025 18:53:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1736189601;
	bh=+kgplTFhDtd5yMs3IoFAZ1TNsBu/UL1Jv2lT29yIS90=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=fUclwJcF18Ybn5csJ4V3eLk45g0czsr7R1if2IFDOxUD+9seK34MBVyIeJ6Cu9tnw
	 7IwPuGxu1EQHWYcFqhj8e6wa4NOGGXfhLA6om1kLKqwbk1KlRvIBriH6hG8NXswZ9w
	 QjOyFIFAGqI5sEJ8zm+XEMOOrgw68kVCj0N5wOpvYESHTgmKZOsdue/Es3Tp/fWLmi
	 sueBb3fUo9b6Zg0XLCvFkJfu6spQHtF9yaD6k7eO4CAdF9bl51Oq5cOf8MRn9++PWa
	 lzHsFINIfcM2Cwg5po/FEmJDtKbz+BrtrHmWwCytY2sUq97bm00DfnUBoO0aU3Jo4c
	 9rf18khDQFDug==
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:53:20 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Refresh idle state when kicking CPUs
Message-ID: <Z3wmoFPes_Qb-hTg@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20250101182449.21517-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
 <Z3cUIkOkfZ3n-XTz@slm.duckdns.org>
 <Z3el8tUA_B8d6aBH@gpd3>
 <Z3hZJwfk3n449gd6@slm.duckdns.org>
 <Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3>

Hello,

On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 08:06:26AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
...
> The issue is that we call ops.update_idle() when a CPU enters or exits
> SCHED_IDLE, whereas it should ideally be called when the CPU transitions
> in/out of the idle state. So perhaps a kick from idle should trigger
> ops.update_idle(cpu, false)? Still, I'm not sure if that would provide any
> benefit... after all, do you see any practical scenarios where having
> unbalanced transitions could be a problem?

If possible, we should keep the calls balanced even if that means a bit of
complications on the core side as these things can become subtle bugs from
BPF scheduler side. And, yeah, I think kicking transitioning the CPU out of
idle makes sense to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun