Re: [PATCH v25 1/9] sched: Make class_schedulers avoid pushing current, and get rid of proxy_tag_curr()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 02:36:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:04:28PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:41 PM K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 3/17/2026 10:19 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess adding a new helper function to manually do the
> > > > put_prev/set_next could be added to the top level __schedule() logic
> > > > in the (prev != next) case, though we'll have to preserve the
> > > > prev_donor on the stack probably.
> > >
> > > That seems like the best option to me too.
> > >
> > > Also, deadline, RT, fair, and idle don't really care about the "next"
> > > argument of put_prev_task() and the only one that does care is
> > > put_prev_task_scx() to call switch_class() callback so putting it as
> > > either NULL or "rq->donor" should be safe.
> > 
> > Ack.
> > Here's the change I'm testing tonight (against 6.18):
> > https://github.com/johnstultz-work/linux-dev/commit/0cc72a4923143f496e33711cbcc1afdf6d861ca6
> > 
> > Feel free to suggest a better name for the helper function. It feels a
> > little clunky (and sort of sad right after getting rid of the clunky
> > proxy_tag_curr(), to re-add something so similar).
> 
> Does this capture it?
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7100,9 +7103,11 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(i
>  pick_again:
>  	assert_balance_callbacks_empty(rq);
>  	next = pick_next_task(rq, rq->donor, &rf);
> -	rq_set_donor(rq, next);
>  	rq->next_class = next->sched_class;
>  	if (sched_proxy_exec()) {
> +		struct task_struct *prev_donor = rq->donor;
> +
> +		rq_set_donor(rq, next);
>  		if (unlikely(next->blocked_on)) {
>  			next = find_proxy_task(rq, next, &rf);
>  			if (!next) {
> @@ -7114,6 +7119,24 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(i
>  				goto keep_resched;
>  			}
>  		}
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * When transitioning like:
> +		 *
> +		 *	   prev		next
> +		 * donor:    B		  B
> +		 * curr:     A		  B
> +		 *
> +		 * then put_prev_set_next_task() will not have done anything,
> +		 * since B == B. However, A might have missed a RT/DL balance
> +		 * opportunity due to being on_cpu.
> +		 */
> +		if (next == rq->donor && next == prev_donor) {

	&& next != prev

> +			next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next, next);
> +			next->sched_class->set_next_task(rq, next, true);
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		rq_set_donor(rq, next);
>  	}
>  picked:
>  	clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);