From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev
Cc: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
ElXreno <elxreno@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] sched_ext: Fix this_rq() assumptions in dispatch kfuncs
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 11:02:19 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260807210221.232543-5-tj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260807210221.232543-1-tj@kernel.org>
Under core scheduling, dispatch runs from within the core-wide pick and can
target a sibling rq, so ops.dispatch() may execute on a CPU different from
the dispatched rq's. Several kfunc paths assumed the two always coincide:
- scx_dsq_move() decided whether an rq lock is held by testing this_rq()'s
rq flags and lock-danced accordingly. A dispatch for a sibling took the
unlocked-context branch and acquired the source rq lock on top of the
already held dispatched rq lock which could deadlock.
- scx_bpf_sub_dispatch() dispatched this_rq() with its stashed
sub_dispatch_prev, which is NULL when dispatching for a sibling.
- finish_dispatch(), scx_bpf_dsq_reenq() and scx_bpf_dsq_nr_queued()
resolved SCX_DSQ_LOCAL to this CPU's local DSQ rather than the dispatched
rq's. The latter two are callable from other rq-locked operations too,
where SCX_DSQ_LOCAL now likewise resolves to the op's rq. This changes
behavior also without core scheduling, e.g. for ops.enqueue() running a
remote wakeup on the waking CPU, and is intended: which CPU happens to
execute an operation is incidental, the op's rq is what it is operating
on, and the resolution now matches the insert side where SCX_DSQ_LOCAL
dispatches land on the task's rq.
Use the rq tracked by scx_locked_rq(), which is set to the dispatched rq
around ops invocations and NULL in unlocked contexts.
Fixes: 4c95380701f5 ("sched/ext: Fold balance_scx() into pick_task_scx()")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.19+
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
---
kernel/sched/ext/ext.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
index ffbe4f7edc99..84ec71d28b61 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext/ext.c
@@ -2737,7 +2737,7 @@ static void finish_dispatch(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
BUG_ON(!(p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_QUEUED));
- dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, this_rq(), dsq_id, task_cpu(p));
+ dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, rq, dsq_id, task_cpu(p));
if (dsq->id == SCX_DSQ_LOCAL)
dispatch_to_local_dsq(sch, rq, dsq, p, enq_flags);
@@ -8887,9 +8887,8 @@ static bool scx_dsq_move(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit,
{
struct scx_dispatch_q *src_dsq = kit->dsq, *dst_dsq;
struct scx_sched *sch;
- struct rq *this_rq, *src_rq, *locked_rq;
+ struct rq *p_rq, *src_rq, *locked_rq;
bool dispatched = false;
- bool in_balance;
unsigned long flags;
/*
@@ -8919,24 +8918,28 @@ static bool scx_dsq_move(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit,
}
/*
- * Can be called from either ops.dispatch() locking this_rq() or any
- * context where no rq lock is held. If latter, lock @p's task_rq which
- * we'll likely need anyway.
+ * Can be called from either ops.dispatch() holding the dispatched rq's
+ * lock or any context where no rq lock is held. If latter, lock @p's
+ * task_rq which we'll likely need anyway.
*/
src_rq = task_rq(p);
local_irq_save(flags);
- this_rq = this_rq();
- in_balance = this_rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_IN_BALANCE;
- if (in_balance) {
- if (this_rq != src_rq)
- switch_rq_lock(this_rq, src_rq);
+ /*
+ * Under core scheduling, dispatch can run for a sibling rq, so the
+ * locked rq is not necessarily this CPU's.
+ */
+ locked_rq = scx_locked_rq();
+
+ if (locked_rq) {
+ if (locked_rq != src_rq)
+ switch_rq_lock(locked_rq, src_rq);
} else {
raw_spin_rq_lock(src_rq);
}
- locked_rq = src_rq;
+ p_rq = src_rq;
raw_spin_lock(&src_dsq->lock);
/* did someone else get to it while we dropped the locks? */
@@ -8946,7 +8949,7 @@ static bool scx_dsq_move(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit,
}
/* @p is still on $src_dsq and stable, determine the destination */
- dst_dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, this_rq, dsq_id, task_cpu(p));
+ dst_dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, locked_rq ?: this_rq(), dsq_id, task_cpu(p));
/*
* Apply vtime and slice updates before moving so that the new time is
@@ -8959,14 +8962,14 @@ static bool scx_dsq_move(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit,
p->scx.slice = kit->slice;
/* execute move */
- locked_rq = move_task_between_dsqs(sch, p, enq_flags, src_dsq, dst_dsq);
+ p_rq = move_task_between_dsqs(sch, p, enq_flags, src_dsq, dst_dsq);
dispatched = true;
out:
- if (in_balance) {
- if (this_rq != locked_rq)
- switch_rq_lock(locked_rq, this_rq);
+ if (locked_rq) {
+ if (locked_rq != p_rq)
+ switch_rq_lock(p_rq, locked_rq);
} else {
- raw_spin_rq_unlock_irqrestore(locked_rq, flags);
+ raw_spin_rq_unlock_irqrestore(p_rq, flags);
}
kit->cursor.flags &= ~(__SCX_DSQ_ITER_HAS_SLICE |
@@ -9204,7 +9207,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc bool scx_bpf_dsq_move_vtime(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq *it__iter,
*/
__bpf_kfunc bool scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(u64 cgroup_id, const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
{
- struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
+ struct rq *rq = scx_locked_rq();
struct scx_sched *parent, *child;
guard(rcu)();
@@ -9223,7 +9226,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc bool scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(u64 cgroup_id, const struct bpf_prog_aux *
return false;
}
- return scx_dispatch_sched(child, this_rq, this_rq->scx.sub_dispatch_prev, true) !=
+ return scx_dispatch_sched(child, rq, rq->scx.sub_dispatch_prev, true) !=
SCX_DSP_NONE;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_EXT_SUB_SCHED */
@@ -9518,6 +9521,10 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_kick_cid(s32 cid, u64 flags, const struct bpf_prog_aux *
*
* Return the number of tasks in the DSQ matching @dsq_id. If not found,
* -%ENOENT is returned.
+ *
+ * %SCX_DSQ_LOCAL resolves to the local DSQ of the rq the current scheduler
+ * operation is locked to - e.g. the rq being dispatched for in ops.dispatch() -
+ * or the calling CPU's when no rq is locked.
*/
__bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_dsq_nr_queued(u64 dsq_id, const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
{
@@ -9534,7 +9541,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_dsq_nr_queued(u64 dsq_id, const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux
}
if (dsq_id == SCX_DSQ_LOCAL) {
- ret = READ_ONCE(this_rq()->scx.local_dsq.nr);
+ ret = READ_ONCE((scx_locked_rq() ?: this_rq())->scx.local_dsq.nr);
goto out;
} else if ((dsq_id & SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON) == SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON) {
s32 cpu = scx_cpu_ret(sch, dsq_id & SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_CPU_MASK);
@@ -9713,10 +9720,15 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct task_struct *scx_bpf_dsq_peek(u64 dsq_id,
* - User DSQs
*
* Re-enqueues are performed asynchronously. Can be called from anywhere.
+ *
+ * %SCX_DSQ_LOCAL resolves to the local DSQ of the rq the current scheduler
+ * operation is locked to - e.g. the rq being dispatched for in ops.dispatch() -
+ * or the calling CPU's when no rq is locked.
*/
__bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_dsq_reenq(u64 dsq_id, u64 reenq_flags,
const struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
{
+ struct rq *locked_rq = scx_locked_rq();
struct scx_sched *sch;
struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq;
@@ -9735,8 +9747,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_dsq_reenq(u64 dsq_id, u64 reenq_flags,
if (!(reenq_flags & __SCX_REENQ_FILTER_MASK))
reenq_flags |= SCX_REENQ_ANY;
- dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, this_rq(), dsq_id, smp_processor_id());
- schedule_dsq_reenq(sch, dsq, reenq_flags, scx_locked_rq());
+ dsq = find_dsq_for_dispatch(sch, locked_rq ?: this_rq(), dsq_id, smp_processor_id());
+ schedule_dsq_reenq(sch, dsq, reenq_flags, locked_rq);
}
/**
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-07 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-07 21:02 [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-7.2-fixes] sched_ext: Fix core scheduling Tejun Heo
2026-08-07 21:02 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched/core: Handle pick_task() releasing the rq lock Tejun Heo
2026-08-07 21:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-07 21:02 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched/core: Make core-sched flips wait for in-flight selections Tejun Heo
2026-08-10 11:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-10 22:10 ` Tejun Heo
2026-08-11 16:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-07 21:02 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched_ext: Replace SCX_RQ_BAL_KEEP with a dispatch verdict return Tejun Heo
2026-08-11 7:43 ` Andrea Righi
2026-08-07 21:02 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2026-08-07 21:02 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched_ext: Count rq lock releases in rq->scx.lock_drop_seq Tejun Heo
2026-08-07 21:02 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched_ext: Fix rq->core_pick corruption under core scheduling Tejun Heo
2026-08-07 21:22 ` sashiko-bot
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=20260807210221.232543-5-tj@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=elxreno@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.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