From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
David Dai <david.dai@linux.dev>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.3-fixes] sched_ext: Don't leave balance callbacks queued across a pick retry
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:33:43 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2fab939d8ebe56a64bbd0061715b227e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261010095208.276806-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Hello, Andrea.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2026 at 11:52:08AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> @@ -3311,18 +3311,6 @@ static enum scx_dsp_verdict dispatch_pick(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf,
> rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
> verdict = dispatch_one(rq, prev);
> rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
> - maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);
The comment above dispatch_pick() still says it queues the follow-up work.
Can you update it?
> @@ -3349,16 +3337,8 @@ static enum scx_dsp_verdict dispatch_core_pick(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *r
> ...
>- if (cpu_of(rq) == smp_processor_id()) {
> - maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);
> ...
>- } else if (unlikely(rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING)) {
> + if (cpu_of(rq) != smp_processor_id() &&
> + unlikely(rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING)) {
This isn't new, but under core scheduling, a local pick that returns a task
isn't final either. If the task has a cookie or the core needs a sync,
pick_next_task() goes on to pick the siblings. A sibling's dispatch can then
drop the core lock with the local rq's callbacks queued, and any CPU pinning
the local rq in that window hits the same warning. A sibling's RETRY also
restarts the selection with the callbacks still queued.
This can be a separate patch. Maybe something like:
1. Always punt the deferred work to irq_work for core picks, local and
remote. The remote branch here runs run_deferred() in place, which can
drop the lock and force a restart by itself.
2. The kick_sync wait can't go to irq_work. However, every lock drop during
a core selection comes from an scx dispatch and already forces a restart
through lock_drop_seq. dispatch_core_pick() can unlink this CPU's
kick_sync_bal_cb before dispatch_one() and set kick_sync_pending again.
If the lock wasn't dropped, the callback goes back right away. If it was,
the restarted local pick queues it again. This needs a small helper next
to queue_balance_callback() to unlink an entry.
> +static void pick_queue_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, bool final)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +
> + if (cpu_of(rq) != smp_processor_id())
> + return;
> +
> + if (!final) {
> + if (rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING) {
> + rq->scx.flags &= ~SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING;
> + schedule_deferred(rq);
> + }
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);
> ...
>+static struct task_struct *
> +do_pick_task_scx(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf, bool force_scx)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *p = __do_pick_task_scx(rq, rf, force_scx);
> +
> + /* after a NULL pick from the dl_server the lower classes still pick */
> + pick_queue_balance_callbacks(rq, p != RETRY_TASK && (p || !force_scx));
> +
> + return p;
> +}
Can we fold pick_queue_balance_callbacks() into do_pick_task_scx() with a
single exit, instead of splitting out __do_pick_task_scx()? The tail can
then be an if/else. Something like:
if (verdict == SCX_DSP_RETRY) {
p = RETRY_TASK;
goto out;
}
...
out:
if (cpu_of(rq) != smp_processor_id())
return p;
if (p != RETRY_TASK && (p || !force_scx)) {
maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);
...
} else if (rq->scx.flags & SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING) {
rq->scx.flags &= ~SCX_RQ_BAL_CB_PENDING;
schedule_deferred(rq);
}
return p;
Thanks.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-14 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-10 9:52 [PATCH sched_ext/for-7.3-fixes] sched_ext: Don't leave balance callbacks queued across a pick retry Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 10:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-10 12:34 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-14 19:33 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=2fab939d8ebe56a64bbd0061715b227e@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=david.dai@linux.dev \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--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