[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef2f2766-ffed-4a35-a5e7-366483d48167@igalia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:10:36 +0900
From: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, void@...ifault.com, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Replace rq_lock() to raw_spin_rq_lock() in
scx_ops_bypass()
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for the review and suggestion!
On 25. 1. 8. 16:16, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Can we include the warning here? In this way people that are hitting the
> same warning can search for it and find this fix.
Sure. I will add the warning message.
>
> Moreover, we can also add:
>
> Fixes: 0e7ffff1b811 ("scx: Fix raciness in scx_ops_bypass()")
Will add this in the next version.
> Maybe we can also do this here since we're already holding the rq lock and
> irqs are disabled:
>
> /* resched to restore ticks and idle state */
> if (cpu == smp_processor_id() || cpu_online(cpu))
> resched_curr(rq);
>
>>
>> - rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
>> + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
>>
>
> And remove the following:
>
>> /* resched to restore ticks and idle state */
>> resched_cpu(cpu);
This optimization makes sense. I will change it as suggested with
one minor change: I will flip the order in the if condition as
follows since cpu_online() is more commonly true:
/* resched to restore ticks and idle state */
if (cpu_online(cpu) || cpu == smp_processor_id())
resched_curr(rq);
Regards,
Changwoo Min
Powered by blists - more mailing lists