From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add a test for ops.dequeue() on remote local DSQ moves
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 15:53:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar0Ua_zkwY7P22iI@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260930114725.331370-3-jpiecuch@google.com>
Hi Kuba,
few nits below, none of them are blockers.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 11:47:23AM +0000, Kuba Piecuch wrote:
> Add a dequeue_remote test that makes moves of tasks in the BPF
> scheduler's custody to another CPU's local DSQ the common case, both via
> SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON dispatch and via scx_bpf_dsq_move_to_local(). The BPF
> scheduler tracks each task's custody state and triggers scx_bpf_error()
> if a custody period doesn't end with exactly one ops.dequeue() before
> the task runs, or if it ends with an SCX_DEQ_CORE_SCHED_EXEC dequeue of
> a task without a core cookie.
>
> Without the previous patch, the test fails with:
>
> sched_ext: dequeue_remote: dequeue_remote.bpf.c:141: 15 (rcu_preempt): late ops.dequeue() with SCX_DEQ_CORE_SCHED_EXEC (enq_cpu=3 cpu=2 seq=1)
> ...
> ops_dequeue+0x114/0x170
> set_next_task_scx+0x104/0x1e0
> __pick_next_task+0xc7/0x180
> __schedule+0x154/0x1870
>
> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-5.5
> Signed-off-by: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
...
> +void BPF_STRUCT_OPS(dequeue_remote_dispatch, s32 cpu, struct task_struct *prev)
> +{
> + struct task_ctx *tctx;
> + struct task_struct *p;
> + s32 pid;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (test_use_move_to_local) {
> + scx_bpf_dsq_move_to_local(SHARED_DSQ, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* pop past stale entries so that they don't leave this CPU idle */
> + bpf_for(i, 0, MAX_DISPATCH_POPS) {
If there are MAX_DISPATCH_POPS or more stale entries in front of a valid one, we
return without dispatching anything and the CPU goes idle. It's quite unlikely,
but maybe we could re-kick this CPU when the loop runs out of pops while the
queue is still non-empty to make the test a bit more robust?
> + if (bpf_map_pop_elem(&global_queue, &pid))
> + return;
> +
> + p = bpf_task_from_pid(pid);
> + if (!p)
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * Entries are stale if @p left custody through a property
> + * change dequeue or was dispatched from a duplicate entry.
> + */
> + tctx = lookup_task_ctx(p);
> + if (!tctx || tctx->state != TASK_ENQUEUED) {
> + bpf_task_release(p);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) {
> + if (scx_bpf_task_cpu(p) != cpu)
> + __sync_fetch_and_add(&remote_dispatch_cnt, 1);
> + scx_bpf_dsq_insert(p, SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON | cpu,
> + SCX_SLICE_DFL, 0);
> + } else {
> + scx_bpf_dsq_insert(p, SCX_DSQ_GLOBAL, SCX_SLICE_DFL, 0);
> + }
> +
> + bpf_task_release(p);
> + return;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void BPF_STRUCT_OPS(dequeue_remote_running, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct task_ctx *tctx;
> +
> + tctx = lookup_task_ctx(p);
> + if (!tctx)
> + return;
> +
> + /* tasks can only run from a local DSQ, i.e. after leaving custody */
> + if (tctx->state == TASK_ENQUEUED) {
> + __sync_fetch_and_add(&missed_dequeue_cnt, 1);
> + scx_bpf_error("%d (%s): running without ops.dequeue() (enq_cpu=%d cpu=%d seq=%llu)",
> + p->pid, p->comm, tctx->enq_cpu,
> + scx_bpf_task_cpu(p), tctx->enqueue_seq);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (tctx->enq_cpu >= 0 && tctx->enq_cpu != scx_bpf_task_cpu(p))
> + __sync_fetch_and_add(&remote_running_cnt, 1);
> + tctx->enq_cpu = -1;
> +}
> +
> +s32 BPF_STRUCT_OPS(dequeue_remote_init_task, struct task_struct *p,
> + struct scx_init_task_args *args)
> +{
> + struct task_ctx *tctx;
> +
> + tctx = bpf_task_storage_get(&task_ctx_stor, p, 0,
> + BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
> + if (!tctx)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /* task storage persists across attachments, start from scratch */
> + tctx->state = TASK_NONE;
> + tctx->enq_cpu = -1;
Nit: maybe reset enqueue_seq as well?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +s32 BPF_STRUCT_OPS_SLEEPABLE(dequeue_remote_init)
> +{
> + return scx_bpf_create_dsq(SHARED_DSQ, -1);
> +}
> +
> +void BPF_STRUCT_OPS(dequeue_remote_exit, struct scx_exit_info *ei)
> +{
> + UEI_RECORD(uei, ei);
> +}
> +
> +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
> +struct sched_ext_ops dequeue_remote_ops = {
> + .select_cpu = (void *)dequeue_remote_select_cpu,
> + .enqueue = (void *)dequeue_remote_enqueue,
> + .dequeue = (void *)dequeue_remote_dequeue,
> + .dispatch = (void *)dequeue_remote_dispatch,
> + .running = (void *)dequeue_remote_running,
> + .init_task = (void *)dequeue_remote_init_task,
> + .init = (void *)dequeue_remote_init,
> + .exit = (void *)dequeue_remote_exit,
> + .flags = SCX_OPS_ENQ_LAST,
> + .name = "dequeue_remote",
> +};
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/dequeue_remote.c b/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/dequeue_remote.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0f03044a5bc6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/dequeue_remote.c
...
> +static enum scx_test_status run_scenario(struct dequeue_remote *skel,
> + bool use_move_to_local,
> + const char *name)
> +{
> + enum scx_test_status ret = SCX_TEST_PASS;
> + struct bpf_link *link;
> + pid_t pids[MAX_WORKERS];
> + int nr_workers, nr_forked, i;
> +
> + nr_workers = 2 * nr_cpus;
> + if (nr_workers < 4)
> + nr_workers = 4;
> + if (nr_workers > MAX_WORKERS)
> + nr_workers = MAX_WORKERS;
> +
> + skel->bss->test_use_move_to_local = use_move_to_local;
> + skel->bss->enqueue_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->dequeue_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->dispatch_dequeue_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->change_dequeue_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->remote_dispatch_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->remote_running_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->missed_dequeue_cnt = 0;
> + skel->bss->core_sched_exec_dequeue_cnt = 0;
Nit: uei isn't reset between scenarios, so in theory this check in the
second scenario could pass using the exit record of the first one. So maybe we
should add:
memset(&skel->data->uei, 0, sizeof(skel->data->uei));
Overall, the test looks good.
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-30 11:47 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-7.3-fixes] sched_ext: Fix missing " Kuba Piecuch
2026-09-30 11:47 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sched_ext: Call ops.dequeue() when a task arrives on a remote local DSQ Kuba Piecuch
2026-09-30 11:47 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add a test for ops.dequeue() on remote local DSQ moves Kuba Piecuch
2026-09-30 13:53 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-09-30 14:27 ` Kuba Piecuch
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=ar0Ua_zkwY7P22iI@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®