From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Wen-Fang Liu <liuwenfang@honor.com>
Subject: Re: sched_ext: Fix SCX_KICK_WAIT to work reliably
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:37:50 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPkkftTJndFx1CEy@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPiLHWVf0Vp1qUzV@gpd4>
Hello, Andrea.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 09:43:25AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > @@ -5208,12 +5214,11 @@ static void kick_cpus_irq_workfn(struct
> >
> > if (cpu != cpu_of(this_rq)) {
>
> It's probably fine anyway, but should we check for cpu_online(cpu) here?
This block gets activated iff kick_one_cpu() returns true and that is gated
by the CPU being online && the current task being on SCX. For the CPU to go
offline, that task has to go off CPU and thus increment the sequence
counter.
> > while (smp_load_acquire(wait_pnt_seq) == pseqs[cpu])
> > cpu_relax();
>
> I'm wondering if we can break the semantic if cpu_rq(cpu)->curr->scx.slice
> is refilled concurrently between kick_one_cpu() and this busy wait. In this
> case we return, because wait_pnt_seq is incremented, but we keep running
> the same task.
>
> Should we introduce a flag (or something similar) to force the re-enqueue
> of the prev task in this case?
Ah, right, that's a hole. There's another hole. The BPF scheduler can choose
to run the same task and put_prev_task_scx() won't be called. I think we
need to bump the seq count on entry to pick_task_scx() too. That should
solve both problems. All that we're guaranteeing is that we wait until the
task enters scheduling path. If a higher class task gets picked,
put_prev_task_scx() will be called. Otherwise, we break the wait when
pick_task_scx() is entered.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-22 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-21 21:03 [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-6.19] sched_ext: Fix SCX_KICK_WAIT reliability Tejun Heo
2025-10-21 21:03 ` sched_ext: Don't kick CPUs running higher classes Tejun Heo
2025-10-21 21:03 ` sched_ext: Fix SCX_KICK_WAIT to work reliably Tejun Heo
2025-10-22 7:43 ` Andrea Righi
2025-10-22 18:37 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2025-10-22 19:25 ` Andrea Righi
2025-10-22 8:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-22 18:38 ` Tejun Heo
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=aPkkftTJndFx1CEy@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuwenfang@honor.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--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