From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, changwoo@igalia.com,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched_ext: idle: Respect task affinity in restricted CPU selection
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 16:39:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asufkdwCQvilJEqr@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261011131700.1351541-1-sh_def@163.com>
Hi Hui,
On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 10:17:00PM +0900, Hui Su wrote:
> The restricted select_cpu kfunc path handles single-CPU and
> migration-disabled tasks without going through scx_select_cpu_dfl().
>
> It currently uses prev_cpu as the candidate. However, prev_cpu is only a
> hint and may no longer be usable after an affinity change. When the caller
> supplies @allowed, the restricted path can also claim and return an idle
> CPU which isn't in p->cpus_ptr.
>
> Derive the candidate from task state instead. Use the sole CPU in
> p->cpus_ptr for single-CPU tasks and task_cpu(p) for migration-disabled
> tasks. Validate the candidate against the task's effective affinity and
> the caller-provided mask before claiming its idle state.
>
> The validation must happen before scx_idle_test_and_clear_cpu(), as a
> successful call consumes the CPU's idle bit. A later placement validation
> therefore cannot undo the idle-state side effect.
>
> Single-CPU and migration-disabled tasks skip ops.select_cpu(), so this
> path can instead be reached when the CPU-selection kfunc is called from
> other contexts such as ops.enqueue(). The normal ops.select_cpu() path is
> unchanged.
>
> Fixes: 683d2d0faba1 ("sched_ext: idle: Introduce scx_bpf_select_cpu_and()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>
> ---
> Testing:
> - x86_64 KVM/QEMU private BPF test-run harness:
> - The baseline returned CPU1 outside the task affinity; v2 returned
> -EBUSY.
> - With a stale prev_cpu, the baseline returned -EBUSY; v2 selected the
> task's idle CPU0.
> - A caller mask excluding the task's candidate CPU returned -EBUSY with v2.
> - The stock sched_ext allowed_cpus selftest passed.
> - Built vmlinux and bzImage with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y.
> - Built kernel/sched/build_policy.o with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n and CONFIG_SMP=n.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Derive the restricted-path candidate from task state instead of prev_cpu.
> - Document the idle-bit side effect and the ops.enqueue() reachability.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20261011025256.4180374-1-sh_def@163.com/
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext/idle.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext/idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext/idle.c
> index aa9fb6de0ad6..1ccea60e9012 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext/idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext/idle.c
> @@ -958,6 +958,7 @@ static s32 select_cpu_from_kfunc(struct scx_sched *sch, struct task_struct *p,
> {
> unsigned long irq_flags;
> bool we_locked = false;
> + bool migration_disabled;
> s32 cpu;
>
> if (!scx_cpu_valid(sch, prev_cpu, NULL))
> @@ -995,14 +996,21 @@ static s32 select_cpu_from_kfunc(struct scx_sched *sch, struct task_struct *p,
> /*
> * This may also be called from ops.enqueue(), so we need to handle
> * per-CPU tasks as well. For these tasks, we can skip all idle CPU
> - * selection optimizations and simply check whether the previously
> - * used CPU is idle and within the allowed cpumask.
> + * selection optimizations and simply check whether the task's only
> + * usable CPU is idle and within the allowed cpumask.
> */
> - if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1 || is_bpf_migration_disabled(p)) {
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, allowed ?: p->cpus_ptr) &&
> - scx_idle_test_and_clear_cpu(prev_cpu))
> - cpu = prev_cpu;
> + migration_disabled = is_bpf_migration_disabled(p);
> +
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1 || migration_disabled) {
> + if (migration_disabled)
> + cpu = task_cpu(p);
> else
> + cpu = cpumask_first(p->cpus_ptr);
> +
> + if ((migration_disabled &&
> + !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) ||
> + (allowed && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, allowed)) ||
> + !scx_idle_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu))
> cpu = -EBUSY;
Sorry, I suggested this, but I just realized that we break SCX_PICK_IDLE_IN_NODE
if we do this. What if we factor the check with an helper? Something like this:
static s32 select_cpu_restricted(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
const struct cpumask *allowed, u64 flags,
bool migration_disabled)
{
s32 cpu;
if (migration_disabled)
cpu = task_cpu(p);
else
cpu = cpumask_first(p->cpus_ptr);
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
return -EBUSY;
if (allowed && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, allowed))
return -EBUSY;
if (flags & SCX_PICK_IDLE_IN_NODE) {
int node = scx_cpu_node_if_enabled(prev_cpu);
if (scx_cpu_node_if_enabled(cpu) != node)
return -EBUSY;
}
if (!scx_idle_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu))
return -EBUSY;
return cpu;
}
Then the caller becomes:
migration_disabled = is_bpf_migration_disabled(p);
if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1 || migration_disabled)
cpu = select_cpu_restricted(p, prev_cpu, allowed, flags, migration_disabled);
else
cpu = scx_select_cpu_dfl(p, prev_cpu, wake_flags, allowed ?: p->cpus_ptr, flags);
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-11 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-11 2:52 [PATCH] sched_ext: idle: Respect task affinity in restricted CPU selection Hui Su
2026-10-11 7:02 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-11 9:10 ` Hui Su
2026-10-11 13:17 ` [PATCH v2] " Hui Su
2026-10-11 14:39 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-10-11 17:09 ` Hui Su
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=asufkdwCQvilJEqr@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sh_def@163.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--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