From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Cheng-Yang Chou <yphbchou0911@gmail.com>,
Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@outlook.com>,
Ching-Chun Huang <jserv@ccns.ncku.edu.tw>,
Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7712@gmail.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] sched_ext: Decouple kfunc unlocked-context check from kf_mask
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 18:34:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adkmnZLc5nD2e6OS@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260410063046.3556100-6-tj@kernel.org>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:30:41PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() uses !current->scx.kf_mask as a proxy for "no
> SCX-tracked lock held". kf_mask is removed in a follow-up patch, so its two
> callers - select_cpu_from_kfunc() and scx_dsq_move() - need another basis.
>
> Add a new bool scx_rq.in_select_cpu, set across the SCX_CALL_OP_TASK_RET
> that invokes ops.select_cpu(), to capture the one case where SCX itself
> holds no lock but try_to_wake_up() holds @p's pi_lock. Together with
> scx_locked_rq(), it expresses the same accepted-context set.
>
> select_cpu_from_kfunc() needs a runtime test because it has to take
> different locking paths depending on context. Open-code as a three-way
> branch. The unlocked branch takes raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock)
> directly - pi_lock alone is enough for the fields the kfunc reads, and is
> lighter than task_rq_lock().
>
> scx_dsq_move() doesn't really need a runtime test - its accepted contexts
> could be enforced at verifier load time. But since the runtime state is
> already there and using it keeps the upcoming load-time filter simpler, just
> write it the same way: (scx_locked_rq() || in_select_cpu) &&
> !kf_allowed(DISPATCH).
>
> scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() is deleted with the conversions.
>
> No functional change.
Makes sense. Nit: it's more of "no semantic change" rather than "no functional
change", because we acquire pi_lock in the unlocked context scenario, instead of
the more expensive taks_rq_lock(). Apart than that looks good.
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 4 +++-
> kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
> kernel/sched/ext_internal.h | 5 -----
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index f7db8822a544..a0bcdc805273 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -3308,10 +3308,12 @@ static int select_task_rq_scx(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flag
> WARN_ON_ONCE(*ddsp_taskp);
> *ddsp_taskp = p;
>
> + this_rq()->scx.in_select_cpu = true;
> cpu = SCX_CALL_OP_TASK_RET(sch,
> SCX_KF_ENQUEUE | SCX_KF_SELECT_CPU,
> select_cpu, NULL, p, prev_cpu,
> wake_flags);
> + this_rq()->scx.in_select_cpu = false;
> p->scx.selected_cpu = cpu;
> *ddsp_taskp = NULL;
> if (ops_cpu_valid(sch, cpu, "from ops.select_cpu()"))
> @@ -8144,7 +8146,7 @@ static bool scx_dsq_move(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit,
> bool in_balance;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - if (!scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() &&
> + if ((scx_locked_rq() || this_rq()->scx.in_select_cpu) &&
> !scx_kf_allowed(sch, SCX_KF_DISPATCH))
> return false;
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> index 8c31fb65477c..f99ceeba2e56 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> @@ -913,8 +913,8 @@ static s32 select_cpu_from_kfunc(struct scx_sched *sch, struct task_struct *p,
> s32 prev_cpu, u64 wake_flags,
> const struct cpumask *allowed, u64 flags)
> {
> - struct rq *rq;
> - struct rq_flags rf;
> + unsigned long irq_flags;
> + bool we_locked = false;
> s32 cpu;
>
> if (!ops_cpu_valid(sch, prev_cpu, NULL))
> @@ -924,27 +924,22 @@ static s32 select_cpu_from_kfunc(struct scx_sched *sch, struct task_struct *p,
> return -EBUSY;
>
> /*
> - * If called from an unlocked context, acquire the task's rq lock,
> - * so that we can safely access p->cpus_ptr and p->nr_cpus_allowed.
> + * Accessing p->cpus_ptr / p->nr_cpus_allowed needs either @p's rq
> + * lock or @p's pi_lock. Three cases:
> *
> - * Otherwise, allow to use this kfunc only from ops.select_cpu()
> - * and ops.select_enqueue().
> + * - inside ops.select_cpu(): try_to_wake_up() holds @p's pi_lock.
> + * - other rq-locked SCX op: scx_locked_rq() points at the held rq.
> + * - truly unlocked (UNLOCKED ops, SYSCALL, non-SCX struct_ops):
> + * nothing held, take pi_lock ourselves.
> */
> - if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked()) {
> - rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> - } else {
> - if (!scx_kf_allowed(sch, SCX_KF_SELECT_CPU | SCX_KF_ENQUEUE))
> - return -EPERM;
> - rq = scx_locked_rq();
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * Validate locking correctness to access p->cpus_ptr and
> - * p->nr_cpus_allowed: if we're holding an rq lock, we're safe;
> - * otherwise, assert that p->pi_lock is held.
> - */
> - if (!rq)
> + if (this_rq()->scx.in_select_cpu) {
> lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
> + } else if (!scx_locked_rq()) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, irq_flags);
> + we_locked = true;
> + } else if (!scx_kf_allowed(sch, SCX_KF_ENQUEUE)) {
> + return -EPERM;
> + }
>
> /*
> * This may also be called from ops.enqueue(), so we need to handle
> @@ -963,8 +958,8 @@ static s32 select_cpu_from_kfunc(struct scx_sched *sch, struct task_struct *p,
> allowed ?: p->cpus_ptr, flags);
> }
>
> - if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked())
> - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> + if (we_locked)
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, irq_flags);
>
> return cpu;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_internal.h b/kernel/sched/ext_internal.h
> index b4f36d8b9c1d..54da08a223b7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext_internal.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext_internal.h
> @@ -1372,11 +1372,6 @@ static inline struct rq *scx_locked_rq(void)
> return __this_cpu_read(scx_locked_rq_state);
> }
>
> -static inline bool scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked(void)
> -{
> - return !current->scx.kf_mask;
> -}
> -
> static inline bool scx_bypassing(struct scx_sched *sch, s32 cpu)
> {
> return unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(sch->pcpu, cpu)->flags &
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index ae0783e27c1e..0b6a177fd597 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ struct scx_rq {
> u64 extra_enq_flags; /* see move_task_to_local_dsq() */
> u32 nr_running;
> u32 cpuperf_target; /* [0, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE] */
> + bool in_select_cpu;
> bool cpu_released;
> u32 flags;
> u32 nr_immed; /* ENQ_IMMED tasks on local_dsq */
> --
> 2.53.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-10 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-10 6:30 [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-7.1] sched_ext: Add verifier-time kfunc context filter Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 01/10] sched_ext: Drop TRACING access to select_cpu kfuncs Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:04 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 02/10] sched_ext: Add select_cpu kfuncs to scx_kfunc_ids_unlocked Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:07 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 17:51 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 03/10] sched_ext: Track @p's rq lock across set_cpus_allowed_scx -> ops.set_cpumask Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:12 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 17:51 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 04/10] sched_ext: Fix ops.cgroup_move() invocation kf_mask and rq tracking Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:16 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 17:51 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 05/10] sched_ext: Decouple kfunc unlocked-context check from kf_mask Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:34 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-04-10 17:51 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 06/10] sched_ext: Drop redundant rq-locked check from scx_bpf_task_cgroup() Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:36 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 07/10] sched_ext: Add verifier-time kfunc context filter Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:49 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 08/10] sched_ext: Remove runtime kfunc mask enforcement Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:50 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 09/10] sched_ext: Rename scx_kf_allowed_on_arg_tasks() to scx_kf_arg_task_ok() Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 16:55 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 6:30 ` [PATCH 10/10] sched_ext: Warn on task-based SCX op recursion Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 17:38 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-10 17:45 ` [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-7.1] sched_ext: Add verifier-time kfunc context filter 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=adkmnZLc5nD2e6OS@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=chia7712@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=jserv@ccns.ncku.edu.tw \
--cc=juntong.deng@outlook.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yphbchou0911@gmail.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