[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aYypQgLb6yZoBfzo@gpd4>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:07:30 +0100
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@...gle.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@...alapatis.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....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 Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 01:54:39PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> One more comment.
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:26:04PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > @@ -1407,13 +1446,19 @@ static void do_enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, u64 enq_flags,
> > * dequeue may be waiting. The store_release matches their load_acquire.
> > */
> > atomic_long_set_release(&p->scx.ops_state, SCX_OPSS_QUEUED | qseq);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Task is now in BPF scheduler's custody. Set %SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY
> > + * so ops.dequeue() is called when it leaves custody.
> > + */
> > + p->scx.flags |= SCX_TASK_IN_CUSTODY;
>
> As this is protected by task's rq lock, doing it here is okay but can you
> move this above atomic_long_set_release()? That's conceptually more
> straightforward as that set_release() is supposed to be the "I'm done with
> this task" point.
Agreed, it definitely looks more correct to move this before the
atomic_long_set_release().
Thanks,
-Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists