From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, changwoo@igalia.com, hodgesd@meta.com,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched_ext: Provide scx_bpf_remote_curr()
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:51:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJCsx7hbCD9f5RK3@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250804112743.711816-3-christian.loehle@arm.com>
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 12:27:42PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
> Provide scx_bpf_remote_curr() as a way for scx schedulers to
> check the curr task of a remote rq, without assuming its lock
> is held.
>
> Many scx schedulers make use of scx_bpf_cpu_rq() to check a
> remote curr (e.g. to see if it should be preempted). This is
> problematic because scx_bpf_cpu_rq() provides access to all
> fields of struct rq, most of which aren't safe to use without
> holding the associated rq lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index 3ea3f0f18030..1d9d9cbed0aa 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -7426,6 +7426,29 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct rq *scx_bpf_cpu_rq(s32 cpu)
> return cpu_rq(cpu);
> }
>
> +struct task_struct *bpf_task_acquire(struct task_struct *p);
Can we move include <linux/btf.h> all the way to the top? In this way we
don't have to add this forward declaration.
> +
> +/**
> + * scx_bpf_remote_curr - Fetch the curr of a rq without acquiring its rq lock
> + * @cpu: CPU of the rq
> + *
> + * Increments the refcount of the task_struct which needs to be released later.
Maybe we should mention that the task must be released by calling
bpf_task_release().
While at it, what do you think about renaming this to something like
scx_bpf_task_acquire_on_cpu(), so that it looks similar to
bpf_task_acquire()?
> + */
> +__bpf_kfunc struct task_struct *scx_bpf_remote_curr(s32 cpu)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> + if (!kf_cpu_valid(cpu, NULL))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + p = cpu_rq(cpu)->curr;
> + if (p)
> + p = bpf_task_acquire(p);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return p;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * scx_bpf_task_cgroup - Return the sched cgroup of a task
> * @p: task of interest
> @@ -7590,6 +7613,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_put_cpumask, KF_RELEASE)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_running, KF_RCU)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_cpu, KF_RCU)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_cpu_rq, KF_RET_NULL)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_remote_curr, KF_RET_NULL | KF_ACQUIRE)
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_cgroup, KF_RCU | KF_ACQUIRE)
> #endif
> diff --git a/tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h b/tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h
> index d4e21558e982..e5d4ef124532 100644
> --- a/tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ s32 scx_bpf_pick_any_cpu(const cpumask_t *cpus_allowed, u64 flags) __ksym;
> bool scx_bpf_task_running(const struct task_struct *p) __ksym;
> s32 scx_bpf_task_cpu(const struct task_struct *p) __ksym;
> struct rq *scx_bpf_cpu_rq(s32 cpu) __ksym;
> +struct task_struct *scx_bpf_remote_curr(s32 cpu) __ksym;
> struct cgroup *scx_bpf_task_cgroup(struct task_struct *p) __ksym __weak;
> u64 scx_bpf_now(void) __ksym __weak;
> void scx_bpf_events(struct scx_event_stats *events, size_t events__sz) __ksym __weak;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-04 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-04 11:27 [PATCH v2 0/3] sched_ext: Harden scx_bpf_cpu_rq() Christian Loehle
2025-08-04 11:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] sched_ext: Mark scx_bpf_cpu_rq as NULL returnable Christian Loehle
2025-08-04 11:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] sched_ext: Provide scx_bpf_remote_curr() Christian Loehle
2025-08-04 12:51 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-08-04 13:27 ` Christian Loehle
2025-08-04 15:48 ` Andrea Righi
2025-08-04 11:27 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] sched_ext: Guarantee rq lock on scx_bpf_cpu_rq() Christian Loehle
2025-08-04 12:41 ` Andrea Righi
2025-08-04 13:02 ` Christian Loehle
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=aJCsx7hbCD9f5RK3@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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.