[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aC7R80ADwPtJmNhu@gpd3>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 09:27:47 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sched-ext@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Call ops.update_idle()
after updating builtin idle bits
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 12:23:06PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> BPF schedulers that use both builtin CPU idle mechanism and
> ops.update_idle() may want to use the latter to create interlocking between
> ops.enqueue() and CPU idle transitions so that either ops.enqueue() sees the
> idle bit or ops.update_idle() sees the task queued somewhere. This can
> prevent race conditions where CPUs go idle while tasks are waiting in DSQs.
>
> For such interlocking to work, ops.update_idle() must be called after
> builtin CPU masks are updated. Relocate the invocation. Currently, there are
> no ordering requirements on transitions from idle and this relocation isn't
> expected to make meaningful differences in that direction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Looks good and it also makes sense semantically: potentially any action
performed in ops.update_idle() should be able to override the built-in idle
state, not the other way around.
For example, if we call scx_bpf_test_and_clear_cpu_idle(cpu) from within
ops.update_idle(), I would expect that to effectively "exclude" the CPU
from the idle selection, since the intention is to override the built-in
idle state. But that's not what it's happening if we update the idle
cpumasks after ops.update_idle(). With this patch applied, it works as
expected.
Maybe we should mention this aspect as well in the commit message,
something like this (feel free to rephrase/ignore):
This also makes the ops.update_idle() behavior semantically consistent:
any action performed in this callback should be able to override the
builtin idle state, not the other way around.
In any case:
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> index ae30de383913..66da03cc0b33 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> @@ -738,16 +738,6 @@ void __scx_update_idle(struct rq *rq, bool idle, bool do_notify)
>
> lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
>
> - /*
> - * Trigger ops.update_idle() only when transitioning from a task to
> - * the idle thread and vice versa.
> - *
> - * Idle transitions are indicated by do_notify being set to true,
> - * managed by put_prev_task_idle()/set_next_task_idle().
> - */
> - if (SCX_HAS_OP(sch, update_idle) && do_notify && !scx_rq_bypassing(rq))
> - SCX_CALL_OP(sch, SCX_KF_REST, update_idle, rq, cpu_of(rq), idle);
> -
> /*
> * Update the idle masks:
> * - for real idle transitions (do_notify == true)
> @@ -765,6 +755,21 @@ void __scx_update_idle(struct rq *rq, bool idle, bool do_notify)
> if (static_branch_likely(&scx_builtin_idle_enabled))
> if (do_notify || is_idle_task(rq->curr))
> update_builtin_idle(cpu, idle);
> +
> + /*
> + * Trigger ops.update_idle() only when transitioning from a task to
> + * the idle thread and vice versa.
> + *
> + * Idle transitions are indicated by do_notify being set to true,
> + * managed by put_prev_task_idle()/set_next_task_idle().
> + *
> + * This must come after builtin idle update so that BPF schedulers can
> + * create interlocking between ops.update_idle() and ops.enqueue() -
> + * either enqueue() sees the idle bit or update_idle() sees the task
> + * that enqueue() queued.
> + */
> + if (SCX_HAS_OP(sch, update_idle) && do_notify && !scx_rq_bypassing(rq))
> + SCX_CALL_OP(sch, SCX_KF_REST, update_idle, rq, cpu_of(rq), idle);
> }
>
> static void reset_idle_masks(struct sched_ext_ops *ops)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists