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 11EFD330B0D; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:47:47 +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=1760716067; cv=none; b=tOyOi3KP5vLII5Y0sJHNE1OyYoQMxNeiXld9X1wmRzyZXD7t5u2f4gcg8tKk8N95MtVC5mqibDWSiFu+I3Wkg+U8V3nD4ml+dMWSzCzyLichMsfVlgjMOa+07b985Fd4oHxDLH9yh3N+vOLpVw34Jzc6zxmMdVmdn1c9lTWR6jo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760716067; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N51bFOBz2p94LI5bf0TX+8dwgIVjXdPkruSvk68Tg8k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VFTEeX181F/y8MTr/XzLf4HAlfnjuj1bxkMoR43uvGa8hM++V0p3XCi+g8uWbeuxkfU1LmJwm7LlJLDNnrVOemxIQaFrC9NvxsuOrXEtNoVXl2+vbJ7zodKWU9lUZ7aPWIIeFhoQyj9FzeCTCcjdCy7jnWZke6XsJDrrgxBXlfw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VLJ1mePu; 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="VLJ1mePu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9711C4CEE7; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:47:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760716066; bh=N51bFOBz2p94LI5bf0TX+8dwgIVjXdPkruSvk68Tg8k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VLJ1mePuIxg8o/YQ44d/UGeVPakM8wNLEZ7rR2GrZeMZM4+ndx+liuRGczTqO2bX1 zEPkyWLPDiKoeipAeAeecdTY2UWQLRlyXLRliSBawol6OCaxOxUpEAIuHra5JcIHxC Ntdgo5YlRDD/m0ZERR5/cFKxM+MNTJdQtWPvDFiGtl8KrdqgeFZKtJoRwmtvs7kfmF RHlJpU+58c5XaZYXRC2iVxuykuNX7Fya9dKh1a9f8ExdJdj6jEc2qyu0zgsSONbAqJ 4DCHDmK2OmECKvG0/h10jcwFZKUYr3TsOHjjNwY9sEjZa5XvFE4Q9PKg8PcmocVc/J O3p6l0GZrMVKw== Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 05:47:45 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Andrea Righi Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Joel Fernandes , David Vernet , Changwoo Min , Shuah Khan , sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luigi De Matteis Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] sched_ext: Add a DL server for sched_ext tasks Message-ID: References: <20251017093214.70029-1-arighi@nvidia.com> <20251017093214.70029-7-arighi@nvidia.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: <20251017093214.70029-7-arighi@nvidia.com> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote: > +static struct task_struct * > +ext_server_pick_task(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct rq_flags *rf) > +{ > + return pick_task_scx(dl_se->rq, rf); > +} I wonder whether we should tell pick_task_scx() to suppress the rq_modified_above() test in this case as a fair or RT task being enqueued has no reason to restart the picking process. While it will behave fine on retry, it's probably useful to be explicit here. Thanks. -- tejun