From: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>
Cc: 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 v2 sched_ext/for-7.1] sched_ext: Invalidate dispatch decisions on CPU affinity changes
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:31:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DH6OUDJUQNA3.6L4YXJMME4KI@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260319083518.94673-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Hi Andrea,
On Thu Mar 19, 2026 at 8:35 AM UTC, Andrea Righi wrote:
> @@ -2043,6 +2041,13 @@ static void ops_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, u64 deq_flags)
> */
> BUG();
> case SCX_OPSS_QUEUED:
> + /*
> + * Invalidate any in-flight dispatches for this task. The
> + * task is leaving the runqueue, so any dispatch decision
> + * made while it was queued is stale.
> + */
> + rq->scx.ops_qseq++;
I'm not sure why this is necessary. Isn't setting the ops_state to
SCX_OPSS_NONE enough to invalidate in-flight dispatches? Could you describe
a scenario where incrementing qseq on dequeue is necessary?
> @@ -2537,9 +2546,26 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
> }
>
> if (src_rq != dst_rq &&
> - unlikely(!task_can_run_on_remote_rq(sch, p, dst_rq, true))) {
> - dispatch_enqueue(sch, rq, find_global_dsq(sch, task_cpu(p)), p,
> - enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_CLEAR_OPSS | SCX_ENQ_GDSQ_FALLBACK);
> + unlikely(!task_can_run_on_remote_rq(sch, p, dst_rq, false))) {
> + /*
> + * Affinity changed after dispatch decision and the task
> + * can't run anymore on the destination rq.
More of a nitpick, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the affinity changed.
The scheduler could have also issued an invalid dispatch to a CPU outside of
the task's cpumask (e.g. due to a bug), in which case the task won't be
re-enqueued if we simply drop the dispatch, correct?
> + *
> + * Drop the dispatch, the task will be re-enqueued. Set the
Just to clarify, is this referring to the enqueue that happens in
do_set_cpus_allowed(), immediately after the actual cpumask change?
> + * task back to QUEUED so dequeue (if waiting) can proceed
> + * using current qseq from the task's rq.
> + */
> + if (src_rq != rq) {
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
> + raw_spin_rq_lock(src_rq);
> + }
> + atomic_long_set_release(&p->scx.ops_state,
> + SCX_OPSS_QUEUED |
> + (src_rq->scx.ops_qseq << SCX_OPSS_QSEQ_SHIFT));
> + if (src_rq != rq) {
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock(src_rq);
> + raw_spin_rq_lock(rq);
> + }
> return;
> }
My understanding is that task_can_run_on_remote_rq() can run without src_rq
locked, so it's possible that @p's cpumask changes after the check, isn't it?
In that case, I think it's still possible to move the task to the local DSQ
of a CPU that is outside of its cpumask, triggering a warning in
move_remote_task_to_local_dsq().
Thanks,
Kuba
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-19 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-19 8:35 [PATCH v2 sched_ext/for-7.1] sched_ext: Invalidate dispatch decisions on CPU affinity changes Andrea Righi
2026-03-19 10:31 ` Kuba Piecuch [this message]
2026-03-19 13:54 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-03-19 21:09 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-20 9:18 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-03-23 23:13 ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-22 6:33 ` Cheng-Yang Chou
2026-04-22 11:02 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-23 13:32 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-04-26 1:47 ` Cheng-Yang Chou
2026-04-27 9:06 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-05-01 16:19 ` Cheng-Yang Chou
2026-05-04 8:00 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-05-04 21:24 ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-04 21:58 ` Andrea Righi
2026-05-05 8:35 ` Cheng-Yang Chou
2026-05-05 8:01 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-05-05 8:31 ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-05 9:13 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-05-05 15:14 ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-05 15:58 ` Cheng-Yang Chou
2026-03-19 15:18 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-03-19 19:01 ` 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=DH6OUDJUQNA3.6L4YXJMME4KI@google.com \
--to=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.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 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.