Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-112185-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:37:32 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	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, changwoo@igalia.com, himadrics@inria.fr,
	memxor@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com, Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/36] sched_ext: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
Message-ID: <20240323023732.GA162856@joelbox2>
References: <20231111024835.2164816-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20231111024835.2164816-13-tj@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231111024835.2164816-13-tj@kernel.org>

Hello Tejun,

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 04:47:38PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> +/*
> + * Omitted operations:
> + *
> + * - wakeup_preempt: NOOP as it isn't useful in the wakeup path because the task
> + *   isn't tied to the CPU at that point.
> + *
> + * - migrate_task_rq: Unncessary as task to cpu mapping is transient.
> + *
> + * - task_fork/dead: We need fork/dead notifications for all tasks regardless of
> + *   their current sched_class. Call them directly from sched core instead.
> + *
> + * - task_woken, switched_from: Unnecessary.
> + */
> +DEFINE_SCHED_CLASS(ext) = {
> +	.enqueue_task		= enqueue_task_scx,
> +	.dequeue_task		= dequeue_task_scx,
> +	.yield_task		= yield_task_scx,
> +	.yield_to_task		= yield_to_task_scx,
> +
> +	.wakeup_preempt		= wakeup_preempt_scx,

I was wondering about the comment above related to 'wakeup_preempt', could
you clarify why it is not useful (NOOP) in the sched-ext class?

wakeup_preempt() may be called via:
sched_ttwu_pending() ->
	ttwu_do_activate() ->
		wakeup_preempt()
			

at which point the enqueue of the task could have already happened via:

sched_ttwu_pending() ->
	ttwu_do_activate() ->
		activate_task() ->
			enqueue_task()

But the comment above says "task isn't tied to the CPU" ?

Apologies in advance if I missed something as I just recently starting
looking into the sched-ext patches.

thanks!

 - Joel