From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@meta.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 11:16:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aY2ofYcZpni9L0px@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aY0EmUnmo4gGitcW@slm.duckdns.org>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:37:13PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 11:34:54PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > The end result is about the same because whenever we migrate we're sending
> > > it to the local DSQ of the destination CPU, so whether we generate the event
> > > on deactivation of the source CPU or activation on the destination doesn't
> > > make *whole* lot of difference. However, conceptually, migrations are
> > > internal events. There isn't anything actionable for the BPF scheduler. The
> > > reason why ops.dequeue() should be emitted is not because the task is
> > > changing CPUs (which caused the deactivation) but the fact that it ends up
> > > in a local DSQ afterwards. I think it'll be cleaner both conceptually and
> > > code-wise to emit ops.dequeue() only from dispatch_enqueue() and dequeue
> > > paths.
> >
> > Does this include core scheduler migrations or just SCX-initiated
> > migrations (move_remote_task_to_local_dsq())?
> >
> > Because with core scheduler migrations we trigger ops.enqueue(), so we
> > should also trigger ops.dequeue(). Or we need to send the task straight to
> > local to prevent calling ops.enqueue().
>
> I'm a bit lost. Can you elaborate on core scheduler migrations triggering
> ops.enqueue()?
Alright, let me re-elaborate more on this with a (slightly) fresher brain.
We have two main classes of migrations:
1) Internal SCX-initiated migrations: e.g.,
dispatch_to_local_dsq() -> move_remote_task_to_local_dsq(), or
consume_remote_task() -> move_remote_task_to_local_dsq(), these
are completely internal to SCX and shouldn't trigger
ops.dequeue/enqueue()
2) Core scheduler migrations
- CPU affinity: sched_setaffinity, cpuset/cgroup mask change, etc.
affine_move_task -> move_queued_task migrates it -> we trigger
ops.dequeue(SCX_DEQ_SCHED_CHANGE) on the source and ops.enqueue() on
the target.
- Core scheduling (CONFIG_SCHED_CORE): two different cases:
- Migration (task moved between runqueues via move_queued_task_locked()
to satisfy core cookie)
- NUMA balancing: migrate_task_to() can move an SCX task to another CPU
- CPU hotplug: on CPU down, runnable tasks are pushed off via
__balance_push_cpu_stop() -> __migrate_task()
If we want to skip ops.dequeue() only for internal SCX migrations (and
maybe also for NUMA and hotplug?), then only checking
task_on_rq_migrating(p) is not enough, because that's true for every
migration listed above and we'd skip all of them.
So, we need a way to mark "this migration is internal to SCX", like a new
SCX_TASK_MIGRATING_INTERNAL flag?
The alternative is to always trigger ops.dequeue/enqueue() on every
migration (no flag): even for internal SCX migrations the BPF scheduler
could use it to track task movements, though there's nothing it can do.
That way we don't need the additional flag.
Does one of these directions fit better with what you have in mind?
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-12 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-10 21:26 [PATCHSET v8] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics Andrea Righi
2026-02-10 21:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-10 23:20 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-11 16:06 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-11 19:47 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-11 22:34 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-11 22:37 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-11 22:48 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-12 10:16 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-02-12 14:32 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-12 15:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-12 17:07 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-12 18:14 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-12 18:35 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-12 22:30 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-14 10:16 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-14 17:56 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-14 19:32 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-10 23:54 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-11 16:07 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-10 21:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-12 17:15 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-12 18:25 ` Andrea Righi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-02-06 13:54 [PATCHSET v7] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 13:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 20:35 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-07 9:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 17:28 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-09 19:06 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-05 15:32 [PATCHSET v6] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-05 15:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-05 19:29 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-02-05 21:32 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 16:05 [PATCHSET v5] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 16:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 22:14 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-05 9:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 9:08 [PATCHSET v4 sched_ext/for-6.20] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 9:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 22:47 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-02 7:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-02 9:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-02 10:02 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-02 15:32 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-02 10:09 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-02 13:59 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-02-04 9:36 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 9:51 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-02-02 11:56 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-02-04 10:11 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 10:33 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-26 8:41 [PATCHSET v3 sched_ext/for-6.20] " Andrea Righi
2026-01-26 8:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-01-27 16:38 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-01-27 16:41 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-30 7:34 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-30 13:14 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-31 6:54 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-31 16:45 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-31 17:24 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-28 21:21 ` Tejun Heo
2026-01-30 11:54 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-31 9:02 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-31 17:53 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-31 20:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-02 15:19 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-02 15:30 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 17:43 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-02 15:52 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-02 16:23 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-21 12:25 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.20] " Andrea Righi
2026-01-21 12:25 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-01-21 12:54 ` Christian Loehle
2026-01-21 12:57 ` Andrea Righi
2026-01-22 9:28 ` Kuba Piecuch
2026-01-23 13:32 ` Andrea Righi
2025-12-19 22:43 [PATCH 0/2] sched_ext: Implement proper " Andrea Righi
2025-12-19 22:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2025-12-28 3:20 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2025-12-29 16:36 ` Andrea Righi
2025-12-29 18:35 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2025-12-28 17:19 ` Tejun Heo
2025-12-28 23:28 ` Tejun Heo
2025-12-28 23:38 ` Tejun Heo
2025-12-29 17:07 ` Andrea Righi
2025-12-29 18:55 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2025-12-28 23:42 ` Tejun Heo
2025-12-29 17:17 ` Andrea Righi
2025-12-29 0:06 ` Tejun Heo
2025-12-29 18:56 ` 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=aY2ofYcZpni9L0px@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.com \
--cc=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--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