From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched/core: Simplify/fix time updates
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 19:38:49 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ape2abNdAgRCfEtg@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260828104018.483560652@infradead.org>
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 12:17:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static void opt_update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + if (!(rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_UPDATED))
> + update_rq_clock(rq);
> +}
Yeah, I think this really needs sth like this. That said,
> @@ -6336,18 +6336,12 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_
> * pick_next_task(). If the current cpu is not the core,
> * the core may also have been updated above.
> */
> - if (i != cpu && (rq_i != rq->core || !core_clock_updated))
> - update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> + opt_update_rq_clock(rq_i);
I don't think this is correct. A sibling rq wouldn't necessarily have
RCQF_UPDATED cleared from whenever it scheduled / ticked the last time, so
the following pick_task() can run with pretty stale rq clock.
>
> - p = pick_task(rq_i, rf);
> + p = pick_task(rq_i, &rf_i);
> if (unlikely(seq != rq->core->core_task_seq ||
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(p == RETRY_TASK))) {
> - /* rq lock may have been dropped, clocks invalidated */
> - core_clock_updated = false;
> - if (!(rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_UPDATED))
> - update_rq_clock(rq);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(p == RETRY_TASK)))
> goto restart;
> - }
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-02 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-28 10:16 [PATCH 0/7] sched: core-sched fixes and balancing Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched/core: Fix pick_next_task() self recursion Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-03 11:13 ` Aaron Lu
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 2/7] sched/core: Simplify/fix time updates Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-02 5:38 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2026-09-02 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 3/7] sched/core: Allow newidle for core-sched Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched/rt: Add early exit on balance path Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: Reflow pick_task_fair() / newidle Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched/fair: Push sched_balance_newidle() unlock down Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28 10:17 ` [PATCH 7/7] sched: Remove sched_class::balance() Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 23:47 ` Tejun Heo
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=ape2abNdAgRCfEtg@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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®