[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DG631YPXWWLA.1NQQ6JWR8MAJL@google.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 09:51:02 +0000
From: Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@...gle.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>, Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@...gle.com>
Cc: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@...alapatis.com>, Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@...a.com>, <sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics
On Wed Feb 4, 2026 at 9:36 AM UTC, Andrea Righi wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index 292adf10fee1b..b189339e74101 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -2260,6 +2260,15 @@ static void finish_dispatch(struct scx_sched *sch, struct rq *rq,
> if (!is_terminal_dsq(dsq_id)) {
> p->scx.flags |= SCX_TASK_OPS_ENQUEUED;
> } else {
> + /*
> + * Locking: we're holding the @rq lock (the
> + * dispatch CPU's rq), but not necessarily
> + * task_rq(p), since @p may be from a remote CPU.
> + *
> + * This is safe because SCX_OPSS_DISPATCHING state
> + * prevents racing dequeues, any concurrent
> + * ops_dequeue() will wait for this state to clear.
> + */
> if (p->scx.flags & SCX_TASK_OPS_ENQUEUED)
> SCX_CALL_OP_TASK(sch, SCX_KF_REST, dequeue, rq, p, 0);
Looks good, thanks :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists