From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@meta.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:30:44 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aZQLFBEBkbF23-K8@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260215191933.2358161-4-arighi@nvidia.com>
Hello,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 08:16:55PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> +/*
> + * Return true if @p is moving due to an internal SCX migration, false
> + * otherwise.
> + */
> +static inline bool task_scx_migrating(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return task_on_rq_migrating(p) && p->scx.sticky_cpu >= 0;
> +}
Can you explain why testing task_on_rq_migrating() is necessary? What does
just testing p->scx.sticky_cpu miss?
> @@ -1106,6 +1153,12 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
> dsq_mod_nr(dsq, 1);
> p->scx.dsq = dsq;
>
> + /*
> + * Non-terminal DSQs: task enters BPF scheduler's custody.
> + */
> + if (!is_terminal_dsq(dsq))
> + p->scx.flags |= SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
Can't this be done in the local_dsq_post_enq() else block?
> /*
> * scx.ddsp_dsq_id and scx.ddsp_enq_flags are only relevant on the
> * direct dispatch path, but we clear them here because the direct
> @@ -1122,10 +1175,23 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
> if (enq_flags & SCX_ENQ_CLEAR_OPSS)
> atomic_long_set_release(&p->scx.ops_state, SCX_OPSS_NONE);
>
> - if (is_local)
> + if (is_local) {
> local_dsq_post_enq(dsq, p, enq_flags);
> - else
> + } else {
> + if (dsq->id == SCX_DSQ_GLOBAL || dsq->id == SCX_DSQ_BYPASS) {
> + /*
> + * Task is on the global or bypass DSQ: call
> + * ops.dequeue() if the task was in BPF custody and
> + * it's not an internal SCX migration.
> + */
> + if ((p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY) &&
> + !task_scx_migrating(p)) {
> + call_task_dequeue(sch, rq, p, 0);
> + p->scx.flags &= ~SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
> + }
> + }
If you add else {} here, that'd catch the non-terminal DSQs, right? If that
works, I think that'd be more logical organization.
> @@ -1531,6 +1611,25 @@ static void ops_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, u64 deq_flags)
>
> switch (opss & SCX_OPSS_STATE_MASK) {
> case SCX_OPSS_NONE:
> + /*
> + * If the task is still in BPF scheduler's custody
> + * (%SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY is set) call ops.dequeue().
> + *
> + * The code that clears ops_state to %SCX_OPSS_NONE does
> + * not always clear %SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY: in
> + * dispatch_to_local_dsq(), when we're moving a task that
> + * was in %SCX_OPSS_DISPATCHING to a remote CPU's local
> + * DSQ, we only set ops_state to %SCX_OPSS_NONE so that a
> + * concurrent dequeue can proceed, but we clear
> + * %SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY only when we later enqueue or move
> + * the task. So we can see NONE + IN_CUSTODY here and we
> + * must handle it.
> + */
> + if ((p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY) &&
> + !task_scx_migrating(p)) {
> + call_task_dequeue(sch, rq, p, op_deq_flags);
> + p->scx.flags &= ~SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
> + }
Except for OPSS_QUEUED path, all call_task_dequeue() callers are using the
same code block and OPSS_QUEUED can too. Can't we move the whole block into
call_task_dequeue()?
> break;
> case SCX_OPSS_QUEUEING:
> /*
> @@ -1539,9 +1638,18 @@ static void ops_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, u64 deq_flags)
> */
> BUG();
> case SCX_OPSS_QUEUED:
> - if (SCX_HAS_OP(sch, dequeue))
> - SCX_CALL_OP_TASK(sch, SCX_KF_REST, dequeue, rq,
> - p, deq_flags);
> + /*
> + * Task is in BPF scheduler's custody (not dispatched yet).
> + * Call ops.dequeue() unless this is an SCX-initiated
> + * migration.
> + *
> + * A queued task must be always in BPF scheduler's custody.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY));
> + if (!task_scx_migrating(p)) {
> + call_task_dequeue(sch, rq, p, op_deq_flags);
> + p->scx.flags &= ~SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
> + }
This placement is a bit odd as before the following try_cmpxchg, this path
doesn't have the ownership of the task. Please see below.
> if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(&p->scx.ops_state, &opss,
> SCX_OPSS_NONE))
> @@ -1563,6 +1671,16 @@ static void ops_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, u64 deq_flags)
> */
> wait_ops_state(p, SCX_OPSS_DISPATCHING);
> BUG_ON(atomic_long_read(&p->scx.ops_state) != SCX_OPSS_NONE);
> +
> + /*
> + * After DISPATCHING completes, task may still be
> + * IN_CUSTODY (see the NONE case).
> + */
> + if ((p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY) &&
> + !task_scx_migrating(p)) {
> + call_task_dequeue(sch, rq, p, op_deq_flags);
> + p->scx.flags &= ~SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
> + }
> break;
> }
> }
If you move QUEUED case after successful try_cmpxchg(), it's always calling
dequeue before breaking out of the switch block. Might as well do it in a
single spot right after the switch block?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-17 6:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-15 19:16 [PATCHSET v9] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-15 19:16 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched_ext: Properly mark SCX-internal migrations via sticky_cpu Andrea Righi
2026-02-15 19:16 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched_ext: Add rq parameter to dispatch_enqueue() Andrea Righi
2026-02-15 19:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics Andrea Righi
2026-02-17 6:30 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2026-02-17 11:51 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-15 19:16 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-18 8:32 [PATCHSET v10] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-18 8:32 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Andrea Righi
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=aZQLFBEBkbF23-K8@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.com \
--cc=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--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
Powered by JetHome