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();
> }
>
> /*
next prev parent 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