From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Changwoo Min <multics69@gmail.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, arighi@nvidia.com,
mingo@redhat.com, changwoo@igalia.com, kernel-dev@igalia.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_now()
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:50:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250108085026.GC23315@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241230095625.114363-3-changwoo@igalia.com>
> +__bpf_kfunc u64 scx_bpf_now(void)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq;
> + u64 clock;
> +
> + preempt_disable();
> +
> + rq = this_rq();
> + if (READ_ONCE(rq->scx.flags) & SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID) {
> + /*
> + * If the rq clock is valid, use the cached rq clock.
> + *
> + * Note that scx_bpf_now() is re-entrant between a process
> + * context and an interrupt context (e.g., timer interrupt).
> + * However, we don't need to consider the race between them
> + * because such race is not observable from a caller.
> + */
> + clock = READ_ONCE(rq->scx.clock);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Otherwise, return a fresh rq clock.
> + *
> + * The rq clock is updated outside of the rq lock.
> + * In this case, keep the updated rq clock invalid so the next
> + * kfunc call outside the rq lock gets a fresh rq clock.
> + */
> + clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
> + }
> +
> + preempt_enable();
> +
> + return clock;
> +}
> +static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock)
> +{
> + if (!scx_enabled())
> + return;
> + WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);
> + WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags | SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
> +}
AFAICT it is possible to be used like:
CPU0 CPU1
lock(rq1->lock);
...
scx_rq_clock_update(...); scx_bpf_now();
...
unlock(rq->lock);
Which then enables the following ordering problem:
CPU0 CPU1
WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock); if (rq->scx.flags & VALID)
WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, VALID); return rq->scx.clock;
Where it then becomes possible to observe VALID before clock is written.
That is, I rather think you need:
> +static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock)
> +{
> + if (!scx_enabled())
> + return;
> + WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);
> + smp_store_release(&rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags | SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
> +}
and:
if (smp_load_acquire(&rq->scx.flags) & SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID) {
> + /*
> + * If the rq clock is valid, use the cached rq clock.
> + *
> + * Note that scx_bpf_now() is re-entrant between a process
> + * context and an interrupt context (e.g., timer interrupt).
> + * However, we don't need to consider the race between them
> + * because such race is not observable from a caller.
> + */
> + clock = READ_ONCE(rq->scx.clock);
Such that if you ovbserve VALID, you must then also observe the clock.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-08 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-30 9:56 [PATCH v7 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 1/6] sched_ext: Relocate scx_enabled() related code Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 2/6] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_now() Changwoo Min
2025-01-08 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-01-08 16:04 ` Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 3/6] sched_ext: Add scx_bpf_now() for BPF scheduler Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 4/6] sched_ext: Add time helpers for BPF schedulers Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 5/6] sched_ext: Replace bpf_ktime_get_ns() to scx_bpf_now() Changwoo Min
2024-12-30 9:56 ` [PATCH v7 6/6] sched_ext: Use time helpers in BPF schedulers Changwoo Min
2025-01-02 18:54 ` [PATCH v7 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock Andrea Righi
2025-01-03 22:16 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-07 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-07 19:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-01-07 19:55 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-08 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20250108085026.GC23315@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=multics69@gmail.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox