linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-6.13] sched_ext: Rename dispatch and consume kfuncs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241112165635.GB9031@maniforge>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:56:35 -0600
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, sched-ext@...a.com,
	arighi@...dia.com, multics69@...il.com, me@...tlynerdless.de,
	ggherdovich@...e.com, dschatzberg@...a.com, yougmark94@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET sched_ext/for-6.13] sched_ext: Rename dispatch and
 consume kfuncs

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 10:02:50AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> [v1] -> v2: Comment and documentation updates.
> 
> In sched_ext API, a repeatedly reported pain point is the overuse of the
> verb "dispatch" and confusion around "consume":
> 
> - ops.dispatch()
> - scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]()
> - scx_bpf_consume()
> - scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]_from_dsq*()
> 
> This overloading of the term is historical. Originally, there were only
> built-in DSQs and moving a task into a DSQ always dispatched it for
> execution. Using the verb "dispatch" for the kfuncs to move tasks into these
> DSQs made sense.
> 
> Later, user DSQs were added and scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]() updated to be
> able to insert tasks into any DSQ. The only allowed DSQ to DSQ transfer was
> from a non-local DSQ to a local DSQ and this operation was named "consume".
> This was already confusing as a task could be dispatched to a user DSQ from
> ops.enqueue() and then the DSQ would have to be consumed in ops.dispatch().
> Later addition of scx_bpf_dispatch_from_dsq*() made the confusion even worse
> as "dispatch" in this context meant moving a task to an arbitrary DSQ from a
> user DSQ.
> 
> Clean up the API with the following renames:
> 
> 1. scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]()		-> scx_bpf_dsq_insert[_vtime]()
> 2. scx_bpf_consume()			-> scx_bpf_dsq_move_to_local()
> 3. scx_bpf_dispatch[_vtime]_from_dsq*()	-> scx_bpf_dsq_move[_vtime]*()
> 
> This patchset is on top of sched_ext/for-6.13 72b85bf6a7f6 ("sched_ext:
> scx_bpf_dispatch_from_dsq_set_*() are allowed from unlocked context") and
> contains the following patches:
> 
>  0001-sched_ext-Rename-scx_bpf_dispatch-_vtime-to-scx_bpf_.patch
>  0002-sched_ext-Rename-scx_bpf_consume-to-scx_bpf_dsq_move.patch
>  0003-sched_ext-Rename-scx_bpf_dispatch-_vtime-_from_dsq-s.patch

For the series:

Acked-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)