public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Track currently locked rq
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:34:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAU-JMwPkBBORCar@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aAUybKUc3LyKZ3F4@slm.duckdns.org>

On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 07:44:12AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 10:30:33PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Hm... actually thinking more about this, a problem with the percpu variable
> > is that, if no rq is locked, we could move to a different CPU and end up
> > reading the wrong rq_locked via scx_locked_rq(). I don't think we want to
> > preempt_disable/enable all the callbacks just to fix this... Maybe storing
> > in current is a safer choice?
> 
> Hmm... I have a hard time imagining a timeline of events which would lead to
> the wrong conclusion. The percpu variable is set only while an rq is locked
> and cleared before the rq lock is released and thus can only be read as
> non-NULL while the rq is locked by that CPU. Maybe I'm missing something.
> Can you illustrate a timeline of events which would lead to the wrong
> conclusion?

Oh ok, I was only thinking of setting the percpu variable when we call
SCX_CALL_OP*(), but if we clear it after the scx op returns, then it should
work. If no rq is locked and we bounce to a different CPU, we'd still read
NULL, so it should be always correct.

Alright, I'll send a v2 with this logic and the percpu variable.

Thanks,
-Andrea

  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-20 18:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-19 12:24 [PATCH 0/2] sched_ext: Introduce rq lock tracking Andrea Righi
2025-04-19 12:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Track currently locked rq Andrea Righi
2025-04-19 17:34   ` Tejun Heo
2025-04-19 20:10     ` Andrea Righi
2025-04-19 20:30       ` Andrea Righi
2025-04-19 21:27         ` Andrea Righi
2025-04-20 17:44         ` Tejun Heo
2025-04-20 18:34           ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-04-19 12:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() Andrea Righi
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-04-20 19:30 [PATCH v2 0/2] sched_ext: Introduce rq lock tracking Andrea Righi
2025-04-20 19:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Track currently locked rq Andrea Righi
2025-04-21 19:03   ` Tejun Heo
2025-04-22  6:27     ` Andrea Righi
2025-04-22  8:26 [PATCH v3 0/2] sched_ext: Introduce rq lock tracking Andrea Righi
2025-04-22  8:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Track currently locked rq Andrea Righi
2025-07-15  9:13   ` Breno Leitao
2025-07-15 17:20     ` Andrea Righi
2025-07-16 10:47       ` Breno Leitao
2025-07-16 12:40         ` Andrea Righi
2025-07-16 12:43           ` Breno Leitao

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=aAU-JMwPkBBORCar@gpd3 \
    --to=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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