Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched_ext: Manage the validity of scx_rq_clock

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Nov 16 2024 - 14:32:55 EST


On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 01:01:23AM +0900, Changwoo Min wrote:
> An rq clock becomes valid when it is updated using update_rq_clock()
> and invalidated when the rq is unlocked using rq_unpin_lock(). Also,
> after long running operations -- ops.running() and ops.update_idle() --
> in a BPF scheduler, the sched_ext core invalidates the rq clock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Changwoo Min <changwoo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++++-
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 3 +++
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a910a5b4c274..d0eb58b6a2da 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -784,6 +784,7 @@ static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
> void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> {
> s64 delta;
> + u64 clock;
>
> lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
>
> @@ -795,11 +796,14 @@ void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_UPDATED);
> rq->clock_update_flags |= RQCF_UPDATED;
> #endif
> + clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
> + scx_rq_clock_update(rq, clock);

It is not at all clear why you think you need to keep a second copy of
that value. You like cache misses?