All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
	Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
	sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH sched_ext/for-7.4 0/5] sched_ext: Make ops.cpu_acquire/release() reliable
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 14:31:40 -1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <657547efeaea54276c50a0c106399366@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261019144807.1207781-1-jpiecuch@google.com>

Hello, Kuba.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 02:48:05PM +0000, Kuba Piecuch wrote:
> Tejun, Peter, would a hook like this be acceptable? The core.c
> footprint is one line, it's a static branch when SCX isn't enabled, and
> the out-of-line call only happens when the pick goes to a class above
> SCX. If you're OK with it, I'd send the IMMED fix first, separately
> (Fixes: 98d709cba319 ("sched_ext: Implement SCX_ENQ_IMMED")), and
> rebase v2 of this series on top of it.

I don't really see a lot of utility in ops.cpu_acquire/release(). As it
currently stands, it doesn't add anything that can't be covered by IMMED,
and given how asynchronous the events are, I'm not sure an edge-triggered
view of CPU availability is particularly useful. IMMED works because it's
something the kernel can check and enforce. If there are holes in it,
let's plug them, but I don't think the holes justify keeping or updating
ops.cpu_acquire/release().

Can you please send the IMMED fixes separately?

Thanks.

--
tejun

      reply	other threads:[~2026-10-20  0:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-18 12:14 [RFC PATCH sched_ext/for-7.4 0/5] sched_ext: Make ops.cpu_acquire/release() reliable Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:14 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] sched_ext: Make legacy scx_bpf_reenqueue_local() target the locked rq Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:14 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched_ext: Emit ops.cpu_acquire/release() on actual CPU transitions Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:32   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-18 12:14 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] sched_ext: Release the CPU when its running task leaves SCX Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:14 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] sched_ext: Un-deprecate ops.cpu_acquire/release() Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:14 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] selftests/sched_ext: Add cpu_avail tests Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-18 12:30   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-19 14:48 ` [RFC PATCH sched_ext/for-7.4 0/5] sched_ext: Make ops.cpu_acquire/release() reliable Kuba Piecuch
2026-10-20  0:31   ` Tejun Heo [this message]

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=657547efeaea54276c50a0c106399366@kernel.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=jpiecuch@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.