From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel-team@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] sched_ext: Restructure dispatch_to_local_dsq()
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 20:09:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240901010936.GF70166@maniforge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240830110415.116090-6-tj@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2413 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 01:03:49AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Now that there's nothing left after the big if block, flip the if condition
> and unindent the body.
>
> No functional changes intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
LGTM, just one comment below.
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index 34b4e63850c1..add267f31396 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -2333,65 +2333,59 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct rq *rq, struct scx_dispatch_q *dst_dsq,
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - if (likely(task_can_run_on_remote_rq(p, dst_rq, true))) {
> - /*
> - * @p is on a possibly remote @src_rq which we need to lock to
> - * move the task. If dequeue is in progress, it'd be locking
> - * @src_rq and waiting on DISPATCHING, so we can't grab @src_rq
> - * lock while holding DISPATCHING.
> - *
> - * As DISPATCHING guarantees that @p is wholly ours, we can
> - * pretend that we're moving from a DSQ and use the same
> - * mechanism - mark the task under transfer with holding_cpu,
> - * release DISPATCHING and then follow the same protocol. See
> - * unlink_dsq_and_lock_task_rq().
> - */
> - p->scx.holding_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> + if (unlikely(!task_can_run_on_remote_rq(p, dst_rq, true))) {
> + dispatch_enqueue(&scx_dsq_global, p, enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_CLEAR_OPSS);
Given that UP systems will always take the path above where rq == src_rq
&& rq == dst_rq, this isn't really a functional change, but technically
we are now moving the backup global DSQ dispatch_enqueue call into the
CONFIG_SMP block. Should we maybe add a BUG() in an #else block below?
It's UP so it's obviously not super critical, but it might help
readability? Feel free to ignore -- the fact that all the rest of the
logic is in a CONFIG_SMP block is pretty clear, and this arguably
already improves readability by moving an unreachable piece of code on
UP into the SMP block.
Thanks,
David
> + return;
> + }
>
[... snip ...]
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> -
> - dispatch_enqueue(&scx_dsq_global, p, enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_CLEAR_OPSS);
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.46.0
>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-01 1:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-30 11:03 [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-6.12] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]_from_dsq() Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 01/11] sched_ext: Rename scx_kfunc_set_sleepable to unlocked and relocate Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 17:45 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 02/11] sched_ext: Refactor consume_remote_task() Tejun Heo
2024-08-31 4:05 ` David Vernet
2024-08-31 5:33 ` Tejun Heo
2024-08-31 23:40 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 03/11] sched_ext: Make find_dsq_for_dispatch() handle SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 0:11 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 04/11] sched_ext: Make dispatch_to_local_dsq() return void Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 17:44 ` [PATCH 04/11] sched_ext: Fix processs_ddsp_deferred_locals() by unifying DTL_INVALID handling Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 0:53 ` David Vernet
2024-09-01 0:56 ` David Vernet
2024-09-01 8:03 ` Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 15:35 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 05/11] sched_ext: Restructure dispatch_to_local_dsq() Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 1:09 ` David Vernet [this message]
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 06/11] sched_ext: Reorder args for consume_local/remote_task() Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 1:40 ` David Vernet
2024-09-01 6:37 ` Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 07/11] sched_ext: Move sanity check and dsq_mod_nr() into task_unlink_from_dsq() Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 1:42 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 08/11] sched_ext: Move consume_local_task() upward Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 1:43 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 09/11] sched_ext: Replace consume_local_task() with move_local_task_to_local_dsq() Tejun Heo
2024-09-01 1:55 ` David Vernet
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 10/11] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]_from_dsq() Tejun Heo
2024-08-31 14:30 ` Andrea Righi
2024-08-31 16:20 ` Tejun Heo
2024-08-31 21:15 ` Andrea Righi
2024-09-02 1:53 ` Changwoo Min
2024-09-02 5:59 ` Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 11:03 ` [PATCH 11/11] scx_qmap: Implement highpri boosting Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 20:59 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2024-08-30 17:31 ` [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-6.12] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]_from_dsq() Tejun Heo
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=20240901010936.GF70166@maniforge \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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