Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched_ext: Fix scx_sched_lock / rq lock ordering

[Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>]

Hi Tejun,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 03:16:52PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There are two sites that nest rq lock inside scx_sched_lock:
> 
> - scx_bypass() takes scx_sched_lock then rq lock per CPU to propagate
>   per-cpu bypass flags and re-enqueue tasks.
> 
> - sysrq_handle_sched_ext_dump() takes scx_sched_lock to iterate all
>   scheds, scx_dump_state() then takes rq lock per CPU for dump.
> 
> And scx_claim_exit() takes scx_sched_lock to propagate exits to
> descendants. It can be reached from scx_tick(), BPF kfuncs, and many
> other paths with rq lock already held, creating the reverse ordering:
> 
>   rq lock -> scx_sched_lock vs. scx_sched_lock -> rq lock
> 
> Fix by flipping scx_bypass() to take rq lock first, and dropping
> scx_sched_lock from sysrq_handle_sched_ext_dump() as scx_sched_all is
> already RCU-traversable and scx_dump_lock now prevents dumping a dead
> sched. This makes the consistent ordering rq lock -> scx_sched_lock.
> 
> Reported-by: Cheng-Yang Chou <yphbchou0911@gmail.com>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260309163025.2240221-1-yphbchou0911@gmail.com
> Fixes: ebeca1f930ea ("sched_ext: Introduce cgroup sub-sched support")
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/ext.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index cf28a8f62ad0..677c1c6c64bf 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -5097,8 +5097,8 @@ static void scx_bypass(struct scx_sched *sch, bool bypass)
>  		struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>  		struct task_struct *p, *n;
>  
> -		raw_spin_lock(&scx_sched_lock);
>  		raw_spin_rq_lock(rq);
> +		raw_spin_lock(&scx_sched_lock);
>  
>  		scx_for_each_descendant_pre(pos, sch) {
>  			struct scx_sched_pcpu *pcpu = per_cpu_ptr(pos->pcpu, cpu);
> @@ -7240,8 +7240,6 @@ static void sysrq_handle_sched_ext_dump(u8 key)
>  	struct scx_exit_info ei = { .kind = SCX_EXIT_NONE, .reason = "SysRq-D" };
>  	struct scx_sched *sch;
>  
> -	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&scx_sched_lock);
> -

Don't we need RCU protection here?

>  	list_for_each_entry_rcu(sch, &scx_sched_all, all)
>  		scx_dump_state(sch, &ei, 0, false);
>  }

Thanks,
-Andrea