Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:01:01 +0100 | | From | Andrea Righi <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 sched_ext/for-7.1] sched_ext: Invalidate dispatch decisions on CPU affinity changes |
| |
Hi Kuba,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 03:18:38PM +0000, Kuba Piecuch wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > On Thu Mar 19, 2026 at 8:35 AM UTC, Andrea Righi wrote: > > A BPF scheduler may rely on p->cpus_ptr from ops.dispatch() to select a > > target CPU. However, task affinity can change between the dispatch > > decision and its finalization in finish_dispatch(). When this happens, > > the scheduler may attempt to dispatch a task to a CPU that is no longer > > allowed, resulting in fatal errors such as: > > > > EXIT: runtime error (SCX_DSQ_LOCAL[_ON] target CPU 10 not allowed for stress-ng-race-[13565]) > > > > This race exists because ops.dispatch() runs without holding the task's > > run queue lock, allowing a concurrent set_cpus_allowed() to update > > p->cpus_ptr while the BPF scheduler is still using it. The dispatch is > > then finalized using stale affinity information. > > > > Example timeline: > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > ---- ---- > > task_rq_lock(p) > > if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) > > set_cpus_allowed_scx(p, new_mask) > > task_rq_unlock(p) > > scx_bpf_dsq_insert(p, > > SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON | cpu, 0) > > > > With commit ebf1ccff79c4 ("sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics"), BPF > > schedulers can avoid the affinity race by tracking task state and > > handling %SCX_DEQ_SCHED_CHANGE in ops.dequeue(): when a task is dequeued > > due to a property change, the scheduler can update the task state and > > skip the direct dispatch from ops.dispatch() for non-queued tasks. > > > > However, schedulers that do not implement task state tracking and > > dispatch directly to a local DSQ directly from ops.dispatch() may > > trigger the scx_error() condition when the kernel validates the > > destination in dispatch_to_local_dsq(). > > The two paragraphs above mention "direct dispatch from ops.dispatch()" > and "dispatch directly to a local DSQ directly from ops.dispatch()". > My understanding is that a "direct dispatch" can only happen from > ops.select_cpu() or ops.enqueue(), not from ops.dispatch(). Is this just > an unfortunate choice of words? > Would "dispatch to a local DSQ" be a more accurate phrase here?
Oh yes, poor wording on my side. What I mean is scx_bpf_dsq_insert(SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON | cpu) from ops.dispatch(), so "dispatch to a local DSQ" is definitely better, thanks!
-Andrea
|  |