From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched_ext: Make scx_bpf_kick_cid() return s32
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 20:38:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiB0s-UPTAaaIIdA@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260603172153.3081861-4-tj@kernel.org>
Hi Tejun,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 07:21:53AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Switch scx_bpf_kick_cid() from void to s32 so future cap enforcement can
> surface failures. cid interface is introduced in this cycle and has no
> external users, so the ABI change is safe. Subsequent patches will add
> -EPERM returns when the calling sub-sched lacks the required cap on the
> target cid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index 32ebbc351564..fedd501de67e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -9405,9 +9405,10 @@ __bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_kick_cpu(s32 cpu, u64 flags, const struct bpf_prog_aux
> * @flags: %SCX_KICK_* flags
> * @aux: implicit BPF argument to access bpf_prog_aux hidden from BPF progs
> *
> - * cid-addressed equivalent of scx_bpf_kick_cpu().
> + * cid-addressed equivalent of scx_bpf_kick_cpu(). Return 0 on success,
> + * -errno otherwise.
> */
> -__bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_kick_cid(s32 cid, u64 flags, const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> +__bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_kick_cid(s32 cid, u64 flags, const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> {
> struct scx_sched *sch;
> s32 cpu;
> @@ -9415,10 +9416,12 @@ __bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_kick_cid(s32 cid, u64 flags, const struct bpf_prog_aux
> guard(rcu)();
> sch = scx_prog_sched(aux);
> if (unlikely(!sch))
> - return;
> + return -ENODEV;
> cpu = scx_cid_to_cpu(sch, cid);
> - if (cpu >= 0)
> - scx_kick_cpu(sch, cpu, flags);
> + if (cpu < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
Right now scx_cid_to_cpu() can only return -EINVAL, but should we propagate the
error to the caller and return cpu here (in case we add more errors in the
future)?
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-03 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-03 17:21 [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: cid/cmask interface prep Tejun Heo
2026-06-03 17:21 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched_ext: Order single-cid cmask helpers as (cid, mask) Tejun Heo
2026-06-03 17:21 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched_ext: Add scx_cmask_test() and scx_cmask_for_each_cid() Tejun Heo
2026-06-03 17:21 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched_ext: Make scx_bpf_kick_cid() return s32 Tejun Heo
2026-06-03 18:38 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-06-03 18:41 ` [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: cid/cmask interface prep 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=aiB0s-UPTAaaIIdA@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.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