From: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,
Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: check remote rq eligibility under task's rq lock
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 17:00:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260618170047.283701-1-jpiecuch@google.com> (raw)
task_can_run_on_remote_rq() operates under the assumption that
p->migration_disabled is stable, i.e. if the kernel observed
is_migration_disabled(p) == true, then the BPF scheduler must have also
been able to see this when dispatching the task, and it's the BPF
scheduler's fault that it tried to dispatch a task with migration
disabled to a CPU other than the task's current CPU.
This assumption does not always hold. It's possible that the BPF
scheduler saw is_migration_disabled(p) == false, while the kernel
observes is_migration_disabled(p) == true in dispatch_to_local_dsq()
-> task_can_run_on_remote_rq().
The crucial thing here is that with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, migration is
disabled while a task is executing a BPF program. So, if there's a
situation where the BPF scheduler checks a task while it's not executing
a BPF program, while the kernel checks it while it is executing one,
the BPF scheduler will be killed through no fault of its own.
Consider the following scenario:
1. SCX task @p is executing on CPU A and CPU A gets preempted by a
higher-priority scheduling class. On entry to __schedule(),
p->migration_disabled == 0.
2. In put_prev_task_scx() @p is enqueued on the BPF scheduler's internal
data structures, making it available for other CPUs to dispatch.
3. CPU B enters ops.dispatch(), pops @p from the BPF scheduler's data
structures, checks is_migration_disabled(p) which returns false,
and dispatches @p to CPU B's local DSQ.
4. On CPU A, @p hasn't been switched out yet. Execution reaches
trace_sched_switch() which enters a BPF program, as the BPF scheduler
hooks into the sched_switch tracepoint to detect idle->fair
transitions. On entry into the BPF program, @p disables migration.
5. CPU B enters finish_dispatch() -> dispatch_to_local_dsq() ->
task_can_run_on_remote_rq() which observes
is_migration_disabled(p) == true, triggering scx_error().
This all happens while holding CPU B's rq lock, so it's not
synchronized with @p switching out.
This patch fixes this by moving the call to task_can_run_on_remote_rq()
after @p's rq lock is acquired in dispatch_to_local_dsq(). This way, we
synchronize with @p switching out, since @p holds its rq lock all
the way until it's switched out. Thus, any BPF programs that are called
between put_prev_task_scx() and the end of the context switch are
guaranteed to have finished and cannot influence p->migration_disabled.
Also add a lockdep assertion in task_can_run_on_remote_rq() which
ensures the task rq lock is held if enforce == true.
Signed-off-by: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>
---
kernel/sched/ext.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
index 6567f626b3f0..4ae7ca4e0a41 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
@@ -2422,6 +2422,7 @@ static void move_remote_task_to_local_dsq(struct task_struct *p, u64 enq_flags,
* no to the BPF scheduler initiated migrations while offline.
*
* The caller must ensure that @p and @rq are on different CPUs.
+ * If enforce == true, caller must hold @p's rq lock.
*/
static bool task_can_run_on_remote_rq(struct scx_sched *sch,
struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq,
@@ -2429,6 +2430,14 @@ static bool task_can_run_on_remote_rq(struct scx_sched *sch,
{
s32 cpu = cpu_of(rq);
+ /*
+ * To prevent races with @p still running on its old CPU while switching
+ * out, make sure we're holding @p's rq lock so as not to risk
+ * erroneously killing the BPF scheduler.
+ */
+ if (enforce)
+ lockdep_assert_rq_held(task_rq(p));
+
WARN_ON_ONCE(task_cpu(p) == cpu);
/*
@@ -2696,13 +2705,6 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
return;
}
- if (src_rq != dst_rq &&
- unlikely(!task_can_run_on_remote_rq(sch, p, dst_rq, true))) {
- dispatch_enqueue(sch, rq, find_global_dsq(sch, task_cpu(p)), p,
- enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_CLEAR_OPSS | SCX_ENQ_GDSQ_FALLBACK);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* @p is on a possibly remote @src_rq which we need to lock to move the
* task. If dequeue is in progress, it'd be locking @src_rq and waiting
@@ -2729,6 +2731,7 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
/* task_rq couldn't have changed if we're still the holding cpu */
if (likely(p->scx.holding_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) &&
!WARN_ON_ONCE(src_rq != task_rq(p))) {
+ bool fallback = false;
/*
* If @p is staying on the same rq, there's no need to go
* through the full deactivate/activate cycle. Optimize by
@@ -2738,6 +2741,11 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
p->scx.holding_cpu = -1;
dispatch_enqueue(sch, dst_rq, &dst_rq->scx.local_dsq, p,
enq_flags);
+ } else if (unlikely(!task_can_run_on_remote_rq(sch, p, dst_rq, true))) {
+ p->scx.holding_cpu = -1;
+ fallback = true;
+ dispatch_enqueue(sch, src_rq, find_global_dsq(sch, task_cpu(p)),
+ p, enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_GDSQ_FALLBACK);
} else {
move_remote_task_to_local_dsq(p, enq_flags,
src_rq, dst_rq);
@@ -2746,7 +2754,7 @@ static void dispatch_to_local_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
}
/* if the destination CPU is idle, wake it up */
- if (sched_class_above(p->sched_class, dst_rq->curr->sched_class))
+ if (!fallback && sched_class_above(p->sched_class, dst_rq->curr->sched_class))
resched_curr(dst_rq);
}
--
2.55.0.rc0.786.g65d90a0328-goog
next reply other threads:[~2026-06-18 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-18 17:00 Kuba Piecuch [this message]
2026-06-19 7:31 ` [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: check remote rq eligibility under task's rq lock Andrea Righi
2026-06-19 13:12 ` Kuba Piecuch
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=20260618170047.283701-1-jpiecuch@google.com \
--to=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.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