From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 828F429BDAA; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 20:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770667831; cv=none; b=mGP1wk7AFvslnDqIlQ98Z64PV422oGNLjtiFxH+G+9WPj0y1YZeOPFPizuSIoBmwS4Sxlx3wcS5NTehHYnhb6PbT04qXJGLVefUBw4XKeRAYE/SnKHU4K1T6JOt3Rysb4dYc+qW2y/+u7lW17nZG2Q1rtJbjTHUQuIEA/6P9Ipk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770667831; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CU4CFqcfoKqnJ1/D1O57lNSaL5Uov3uiBiR6frIZZE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gLrAqm+1ZtsIf3EnMUNFC/WYSmZ995FXK2RcXhQaLgV9Np07MCyxnDY2szCGDRRIxNpXozFBwZ+ktSO92OMHMVhNQ3nISuyeVpeTQ8gcjDd/3sxR9uIyfALkRkIGnXlOW8yfzfTMky+SefWfdsz0lb6yPbMOkBlDyVrurJk3Wt0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Kc2ipby4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Kc2ipby4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18B55C116C6; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 20:10:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1770667831; bh=CU4CFqcfoKqnJ1/D1O57lNSaL5Uov3uiBiR6frIZZE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Kc2ipby4AJGPI/Sxazqu894aGJBEhvmCA8CmgISEoUeSevzhf/U93Jr/9uykwAdZH Ej7xxrJDd8w3CrhBbO0mB0HGdw4N/F5US/RlnxbFtJuZmhp2aJuaUpqlZC/zlMIawp /dJXFEt8AhVC2c767XtDo1bDVb6/Z7N07Of9FaSZ6T/c7P6iRH2SzbB27MMg7TrXvn aRlZe54DuJoKCSAKvVkfJysBYXX6fNquiJYc2BxUlGaTkmNCVObuprtaVY4avbgE1W 7qFojxjUTFJar11zKWatRsd75XEg/NIZu6VBVMp57+ZumSVuDD8hAOYD7oJwoG0XqG 3XT7fuqq+4fiw== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 10:10:30 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Andrea Righi Cc: Emil Tsalapatis , David Vernet , Changwoo Min , Kuba Piecuch , Christian Loehle , Daniel Hodges , sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate ops.dequeue() semantics Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello, On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 08:17:24PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > Agreed. And just to be clear, for the purpose of triggering ops.dequeue(), > **all** direct dispatches from ops.select_cpu() should be consistently > ignored, including dispatches to user DSQs. I'll update this behavior in > the next version, because this one treats direct dispatches to user DSQs > from ops.select_cpu() as if the task is in the scheduler's custody, which > shouldn't be the case for consistency. I'm not sure about that. ops.select_cpu() doing direct dispatch is just a shortcut and should be treated like the same operation being done at the head of ops.enqueue(). That's what's happening semantically and I think we should stick with what's happening underneath - ie. make ops.select_cpu()'s shortcut the special case, not whether tasks in a user DSQ get ops.dequeue() or not. Thanks. -- tejun