From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
longman@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com,
void@manifault.com, arighi@nvidia.com, changwoo@igalia.com,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,
liuwenfang@honor.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] sched: Add {DE,EN}QUEUE_LOCKED
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 15:10:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250925131025.GA4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aMRLIEtmcWc0XNmg@slm.duckdns.org>
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 06:32:32AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:19:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ...
> > Ah, but I think we *have* to change it :/ The thing is that with the new
> > pick you can change 'rq' without holding the source rq->lock. So we
> > can't maintain this list.
> >
> > Could something like so work?
> >
> > scoped_guard (rcu) for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> > if (p->flags & PF_EXITING || p->sched_class != ext_sched_class)
> > continue;
> >
> > guard(task_rq_lock)(p);
> > scoped_guard (sched_change, p) {
> > /* no-op */
> > }
> > }
>
> Yeah, or I can make scx_tasks iteration smarter so that it can skip through
> the list for tasks which aren't runnable. As long as it doesn't do lock ops
> on every task, it should be fine. I think this is solvable one way or
> another. Let's continue in the other subthread.
Well, either this or scx_tasks iterator will result in lock ops for
every task, this is unavoidable if we want the normal p->pi_lock,
rq->lock (dsq->lock) taken for every sched_change caller.
I have the below which I would like to include in the series such that I
can clean up all that DEQUEUE_LOCKED stuff a bit, this being the only
sched_change that's 'weird'.
Added 'bonus' is of course one less user of the runnable_list.
(also, I have to note, for_each_cpu with preemption disabled is asking
for trouble, the enormous core count machines are no longer super
esoteric)
--- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
@@ -4817,6 +4817,7 @@ static void scx_bypass(bool bypass)
{
static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(bypass_lock);
static unsigned long bypass_timestamp;
+ struct task_struct *g, *p;
struct scx_sched *sch;
unsigned long flags;
int cpu;
@@ -4849,16 +4850,16 @@ static void scx_bypass(bool bypass)
* queued tasks are re-queued according to the new scx_rq_bypassing()
* state. As an optimization, walk each rq's runnable_list instead of
* the scx_tasks list.
- *
- * This function can't trust the scheduler and thus can't use
- * cpus_read_lock(). Walk all possible CPUs instead of online.
+ */
+
+ /*
+ * XXX online_mask is stable due to !preempt (per bypass_lock)
+ * so could this be for_each_online_cpu() ?
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
- struct task_struct *p, *n;
raw_spin_rq_lock(rq);
-
if (bypass) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BYPASSING);
rq->scx.flags |= SCX_RQ_BYPASSING;
@@ -4866,36 +4867,33 @@ static void scx_bypass(bool bypass)
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BYPASSING));
rq->scx.flags &= ~SCX_RQ_BYPASSING;
}
+ raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
+ }
+
+ /* implicit RCU section due to bypass_lock */
+ for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
+ unsigned int state;
- /*
- * We need to guarantee that no tasks are on the BPF scheduler
- * while bypassing. Either we see enabled or the enable path
- * sees scx_rq_bypassing() before moving tasks to SCX.
- */
- if (!scx_enabled()) {
- raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
+ guard(raw_spinlock)(&p->pi_lock);
+ if (p->flags & PF_EXITING || p->sched_class != &ext_sched_class)
+ continue;
+
+ state = READ_ONCE(p->__state);
+ if (state != TASK_RUNNING && state != TASK_WAKING)
continue;
- }
- /*
- * The use of list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse() is required
- * because each task is going to be removed from and added back
- * to the runnable_list during iteration. Because they're added
- * to the tail of the list, safe reverse iteration can still
- * visit all nodes.
- */
- list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(p, n, &rq->scx.runnable_list,
- scx.runnable_node) {
- /* cycling deq/enq is enough, see the function comment */
- scoped_guard (sched_change, p, DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE) {
- /* nothing */ ;
- }
+ guard(__task_rq_lock)(p);
+ scoped_guard (sched_change, p, DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE) {
+ /* nothing */ ;
}
+ }
- /* resched to restore ticks and idle state */
- if (cpu_online(cpu) || cpu == smp_processor_id())
- resched_curr(rq);
+ /* implicit !preempt section due to bypass_lock */
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+ raw_spin_rq_lock(rq);
+ resched_curr(cpu_rq(cpu));
raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-25 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-10 15:44 [PATCH 00/14] sched: Support shared runqueue locking Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 01/14] sched: Employ sched_change guards Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 9:06 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-11 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 10:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 10:37 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-10-06 15:21 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-10-06 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-07 5:12 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-10-07 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-16 9:33 ` [tip: sched/core] sched: Mandate shared flags for sched_change tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 02/14] sched: Re-arrange the {EN,DE}QUEUE flags Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 03/14] sched: Fold sched_class::switch{ing,ed}_{to,from}() into the change pattern Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 04/14] sched: Cleanup sched_delayed handling for class switches Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 05/14] sched: Move sched_class::prio_changed() into the change pattern Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 1:44 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 06/14] sched: Fix migrate_disable_switch() locking Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 07/14] sched: Fix do_set_cpus_allowed() locking Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-30 0:12 ` Mark Brown
2025-10-30 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-30 12:47 ` Mark Brown
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 08/14] sched: Rename do_set_cpus_allowed() Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 09/14] sched: Make __do_set_cpus_allowed() use the sched_change pattern Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 10/14] sched: Add locking comments to sched_class methods Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 11/14] sched: Add flags to {put_prev,set_next}_task() methods Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 12/14] sched: Add shared runqueue locking to __task_rq_lock() Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-12 0:19 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-12 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-12 14:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-12 17:56 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-15 8:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-16 22:29 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-16 22:41 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-25 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-25 21:43 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-26 9:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-26 16:48 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-26 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-26 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-29 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 23:49 ` Tejun Heo
2025-10-01 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-02 23:32 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 13/14] sched: Add {DE,EN}QUEUE_LOCKED Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 2:01 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-11 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 20:40 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-12 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-12 16:32 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-13 22:32 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-15 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-25 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-09-25 15:40 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-25 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-25 18:44 ` Tejun Heo
2025-09-10 15:44 ` [PATCH 14/14] sched/ext: Implement p->srq_lock support Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 16:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 17:32 ` [PATCH 00/14] sched: Support shared runqueue locking Andrea Righi
2025-09-10 18:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 18:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-10 19:00 ` Andrea Righi
2025-09-11 9:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 14:51 ` Andrea Righi
2025-09-11 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 14:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-11 14:48 ` Andrea Righi
2025-09-18 15:15 ` Christian Loehle
2025-09-25 9:00 ` 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=20250925131025.GA4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuwenfang@honor.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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