From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Reject policy changes with SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 10:51:39 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb62f13e-f9d4-4153-93ff-c144526f9a93@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730135858.2460751-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Hello Andrea,
On 7/30/2026 7:28 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> index b215b0ead9a60..8fb8474d0a0ec 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> @@ -645,12 +645,19 @@ int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> goto recheck;
> }
>
> + /* KEEP_PARAMS only makes sense if the scheduling policy is unchanged */
> + if ((attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS) && policy != p->policy) {
> + retval = -EINVAL;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * If setscheduling to SCHED_DEADLINE (or changing the parameters
> * of a SCHED_DEADLINE task) we need to check if enough bandwidth
> * is available.
> */
> - if ((dl_policy(policy) || dl_task(p)) && sched_dl_overflow(p, policy, attr)) {
> + if (!(attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS) &&
> + (dl_policy(policy) || dl_task(p)) && sched_dl_overflow(p, policy, attr)) {
> retval = -EBUSY;
> goto unlock;
> }
On an unrelated side note, similar concern exists for p->reset_on_fork and
that it can be changed by a parallel sched_setscheduler() that finished
before and the one that is lagging can continue with a stale copy.
reset_on_fork is computed outside the rq_lock for KEEP_POLICY case and
p->reset_on_fork will be set to that if nothing else changes (same policy,
same attributes, no uclamp changes) in the early unlock case.
Peter, is that a concern?
> @@ -675,7 +682,7 @@ int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> prev_class = p->sched_class;
> next_class = __setscheduler_class(policy, newprio);
>
> - if (prev_class != next_class)
> + if (!(attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS) && prev_class != next_class)
> queue_flags |= DEQUEUE_CLASS;
Can this happen if we've already ensured policy is unchanged under
rq_lock for KEEP_PARAMS? The
newprio = __normal_prio(policy, ...);
above would have fixed it under the rq_lock right based on policy
right?
>
> scoped_guard (sched_change, p, queue_flags) {
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-31 5:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 13:58 Andrea Righi
2026-07-31 5:21 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-07-31 12:16 ` 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=eb62f13e-f9d4-4153-93ff-c144526f9a93@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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®