public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:40:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aHedrl4G5DecVzpS@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qxulb3ckm256bltfep45iac3vifv342o24654ulh4zt6shvg5j@grp7crx56rk3>

Hi Breno,

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 03:47:38AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Andrea,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 07:20:28PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:26:32AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > > +		lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> > > > +	__this_cpu_write(locked_rq, rq);
> > > 
> > > This is hitting the following BUG() on some of my debug kernels:
> > > 
> > > 	BUG: using __this_cpu_write() in preemptible [00000000] code: scx_layered_6-9/68770
> > > 
> > > I have lockdep enabled, and I don't see the assert above. I am wondering
> > > if rq is locked but preemption continues to be enabled (!?)
> > 
> > Interesting. And it makes sense, because we may have callbacks called from
> > a preemptible context (especially when rq == NULL).
> > 
> > I think we can just put a preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() around
> > __this_cpu_write(). If we jump to another CPU during the callback it's
> > fine, since we would track the rq state on the other CPU with its own local
> > variable. And if we were able to jump there, it means that preemption was
> > disabled as well.
> 
> First of all thanks for the suggestion!
> 
> What about a patch like the following:

Looks good to me, feel free to add my:

Acked-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>

Thanks,
-Andrea

> 
> commit 9ed31e914181ec8f2d0b4484c42b00b6794661b9
> Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> Date:   Wed Jul 16 03:10:59 2025 -0700
> 
>     sched/ext: Suppress warning in __this_cpu_write() by disabling preemption
>     
>     __this_cpu_write() emits a warning if used with preemption enabled.
>     
>     Function update_locked_rq() might be called with preemption enabled,
>     which causes the following warning:
>     
>             BUG: using __this_cpu_write() in preemptible [00000000] code: scx_layered_6-9/68770
>     
>     Disable preemption around the __this_cpu_write() call in
>     update_locked_rq() to suppress the warning, without affecting behavior.
>     
>     If preemption triggers a jump to another CPU during the callback it's
>     fine, since we would track the rq state on the other CPU with its own
>     local variable.
>     
>     Suggested-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
>     Fixes: 18853ba782bef ("sched_ext: Track currently locked rq")
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index b498d867ba210..24fcbd7331f73 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -1258,7 +1258,14 @@ static inline void update_locked_rq(struct rq *rq)
>  	 */
>  	if (rq)
>  		lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +	/*
> +	 * __this_cpu_write() emits a warning when used with preemption enabled.
> +	 * While there's no functional issue if the callback runs on another
> +	 * CPU, we disable preemption here solely to suppress that warning.
> +	 */
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	__this_cpu_write(locked_rq, rq);
> +	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  
>  /*

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-16 12:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
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 [this message]
2025-07-16 12:43           ` Breno Leitao
2025-04-22  8:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() Andrea Righi
2025-04-22 19:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] sched_ext: Introduce rq lock tracking Tejun Heo
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-04-20 19:30 [PATCH v2 " 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
2025-04-19 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

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=aHedrl4G5DecVzpS@gpd4 \
    --to=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=leitao@debian.org \
    --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