From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes 1/2] sched_ext: Implement auto local dispatching of migration disabled tasks
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:36:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6aK2J4F7fnzugxs@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z6Zz79AUub1YuHwD@slm.duckdns.org>
Hi Tejun,
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:58:23AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Migration disabled tasks are special and pinned to their previous CPUs. They
> tripped up some unsuspecting BPF schedulers as their ->nr_cpus_allowed may
> not agree with the bits set in ->cpus_ptr. Make it easier for BPF schedulers
> by automatically dispatching them to the pinned local DSQs by default. If a
> BPF scheduler wants to handle migration disabled tasks explicitly, it can
> set SCX_OPS_ENQ_MIGRATION_DISABLED.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -123,6 +123,19 @@ enum scx_ops_flags {
> SCX_OPS_SWITCH_PARTIAL = 1LLU << 3,
>
> /*
> + * A migration disabled task can only execute on its current CPU. By
> + * default, such tasks are automatically put on the CPU's local DSQ with
> + * the default slice on enqueue. If this ops flag is set, they also go
> + * through ops.enqueue().
> + *
> + * A migration disabled task never invokes ops.select_cpu() as it can
> + * only select the current CPU. Also, p->cpus_ptr will only contain its
> + * current CPU while p->nr_cpus_allowed keeps tracking p->user_cpus_ptr
> + * and thus may disagree with cpumask_weight(p->cpus_ptr).
> + */
> + SCX_OPS_ENQ_MIGRATION_DISABLED = 1LLU << 4,
> +
> + /*
> * CPU cgroup support flags
> */
> SCX_OPS_HAS_CGROUP_WEIGHT = 1LLU << 16, /* cpu.weight */
> @@ -130,6 +143,7 @@ enum scx_ops_flags {
> SCX_OPS_ALL_FLAGS = SCX_OPS_KEEP_BUILTIN_IDLE |
> SCX_OPS_ENQ_LAST |
> SCX_OPS_ENQ_EXITING |
> + SCX_OPS_ENQ_MIGRATION_DISABLED |
> SCX_OPS_SWITCH_PARTIAL |
> SCX_OPS_HAS_CGROUP_WEIGHT,
> };
> @@ -882,6 +896,7 @@ static bool scx_warned_zero_slice;
>
> static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_ops_enq_last);
> static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_ops_enq_exiting);
> +static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_ops_enq_migration_disabled);
> static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_ops_cpu_preempt);
> static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_builtin_idle_enabled);
>
> @@ -2014,6 +2029,11 @@ static void do_enqueue_task(struct rq *r
> unlikely(p->flags & PF_EXITING))
> goto local;
>
> + /* see %SCX_OPS_ENQ_MIGRATION_DISABLED */
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&scx_ops_enq_migration_disabled) &&
> + is_migration_disabled(p))
> + goto local;
Maybe not in this patch set, but it'd be nice to have an event counter for
this, as skipping ops.enqueue() might introduce latency issues. Having a
feedback could help to determine if we need to enable
SCX_OPS_ENQ_MIGRATION_DISABLED in some schedulers.
I'm also a bit conflicted if the default should be on or off, we're
changing the previous behavior, but OTOH this is going to prevent some
potential breakage (due to the nr_cpus_allowed mismatch) and server
workload is going to benefit from this, so it seems that there are more
pros than cons at dispatching migration_disabled tasks directly by default.
And I also did a quick test with this and it seems good, so:
Acked-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-07 22:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-07 20:58 [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes 1/2] sched_ext: Implement auto local dispatching of migration disabled tasks Tejun Heo
2025-02-07 20:59 ` [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes 2/2] sched_ext: Fix migration disabled handling in targeted dispatches Tejun Heo
2025-02-09 6:33 ` Tejun Heo
2025-02-07 22:36 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-02-07 22:44 ` [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes 1/2] sched_ext: Implement auto local dispatching of migration disabled tasks Tejun Heo
2025-02-07 22:59 ` Andrea Righi
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=Z6aK2J4F7fnzugxs@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@meta.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