From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
David Dai <david.dai@linux.dev>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.4] sched_ext: Work around pahole 1.32 dropping scx_bpf_task_set_lazy_resched() from BTF
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 21:37:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <arwTiTqswOa_Zr9q@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arwQjsHCGl5lF7LR@slm.duckdns.org>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 09:25:02AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 09:19:50PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > First of all thanks for figuring this out, it was really annoying, I've been
> > holding pahole to 1.31 because of this.
> >
> > I also looked a bit and it seems to be triggered specifically by the bool type.
> > This is with clang 22.1.8 on x86_64 without barrier_data and only changing the
> > type:
> >
> > bool movl %esi, %ebp -> dropped by pahole
> > u32 movl %esi, %ebp -> ok
> > u64 movq %rsi, %r15 -> ok
> >
> > With u32 the generated code is identical to the bool case, but clang keeps the
> > RSI entry range, so pahole is happy.
> >
> > Should we just change lazy to u32 (or use a u64 flags) instead of using
> > barrier_data()?
>
> I mean, bool is the right and I'm hoping clang can be fixed and the
> workaround seems to work, so keep it as-is unless there are other reasons to
> change it (e.g. this becomes a wider interface taking u64 flags or sth like
> that)?
Yeah, at the moment I don't see any valid reason to change lazy to a u64 flags.
And it's probably better to introduce a workaround in the code rather than a
workaround in the ABI, so let's keep barrier_data().
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-29 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 17:32 [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.4] sched_ext: Work around pahole 1.32 dropping scx_bpf_task_set_lazy_resched() from BTF Tejun Heo
2026-09-29 17:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 19:19 ` Andrea Righi
2026-09-29 19:25 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-29 19:37 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-09-29 23:11 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-30 0:59 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=arwTiTqswOa_Zr9q@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=david.dai@linux.dev \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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.