Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:31:11 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@kernel.org, joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com,
        pjt@google.com, derkling@google.com, haoluo@google.com,
        dvernet@meta.com, dschatzberg@meta.com, dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu,
        riel@surriel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/31] sched_ext: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
Message-ID: <Y5cfD137arVsOdj7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221130082313.3241517-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20221130082313.3241517-15-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221130082313.3241517-15-tj@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:22:56PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> @@ -11242,3 +11268,38 @@ void call_trace_sched_update_nr_running(struct rq *rq, int count)
>  {
>          trace_sched_update_nr_running_tp(rq, count);
>  }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT
> +void sched_deq_and_put_task(struct task_struct *p, int queue_flags,
> +			    struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +
> +	*ctx = (struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx){
> +		.p = p,
> +		.queue_flags = queue_flags | DEQUEUE_NOCLOCK,
> +		.queued = task_on_rq_queued(p),
> +		.running = task_current(rq, p),
> +	};
> +
> +	update_rq_clock(rq);
> +	if (ctx->queued)
> +		dequeue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
> +	if (ctx->running)
> +		put_prev_task(rq, p);
> +}
> +
> +void sched_enq_and_set_task(struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq = task_rq(ctx->p);
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +
> +	if (ctx->queued)
> +		enqueue_task(rq, ctx->p, ctx->queue_flags);
> +	if (ctx->running)
> +		set_next_task(rq, ctx->p);
> +}
> +#endif	/* CONFIG_SCHED_CLASS_EXT */

So no. Like the whole __setscheduler_prio() thing, this doesn't make
sense outside of the core code, policy/class code should never need to
do this.

Also: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220330162228.GH14330@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net