Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Newly acquired exclusive CPUs are not added to `idle_cids.mask` if they were already idle when ownership changed, leading to lost wakeups.
- [Medium] Tasks pinned exclusively to delegated CPUs will be permanently stranded in `SHARED_DSQ`.
- [Medium] `qmap_sub_attach` and `qmap_sub_detach` modify the `sub_sched_ctxs` array without synchronization, causing data races with timer-driven partition updates.
--
--- Patch [35]: [PATCH v3 sched_ext/for-7.3 35/36] tools/sched_ext: scx_qmap - Expand hierarchical sub-scheduling ---
commit 1fbc1bc9a944e2dd17d65dc96b81e16ff548c984
Author: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Subject: tools/sched_ext: scx_qmap - Expand hierarchical sub-scheduling
This commit expands scx_qmap to demonstrate hierarchical sub-scheduling
features in sched_ext, allowing a parent scheduler to delegate CPU
capacities to child cgroup schedulers. The parent splits exclusive
capabilities among itself and children based on weight, with leftovers
forming a time-shared pool.
> diff --git a/tools/sched_ext/scx_qmap.bpf.c b/tools/sched_ext/scx_qmap.bpf.c
> index f6cfe63425d36..18afa975406de 100644
> --- a/tools/sched_ext/scx_qmap.bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/sched_ext/scx_qmap.bpf.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -567,12 +627,35 @@ void BPF_STRUCT_OPS(qmap_dispatch, s32 cid, struct task_struct *prev)
> struct cpu_ctx __arena *cpuc;
> task_ctx_t *taskc;
> u32 batch = dsp_batch ?: 1;
> + s32 owner;
> s32 i;
>
> if (dispatch_highpri(false))
> return;
>
> - if (!qa.nr_highpri_queued && scx_bpf_dsq_move_to_local(SHARED_DSQ, 0))
> + /*
> + * Sub-sched routing: a child-owned cid goes to its owner. Never run
> + * this node's own tasks on a delegated cid. Read without the guard.
> + */
> + owner = qa.part.cid_owner[cid];
> + if (owner == CID_SHARED) {
> + /* route to the live rr holder (0 = self, runs below) */
> + s32 pos = qa.part.rr_pos;
> + u64 holder_cgid = (pos >= 0 && pos < MAX_PARTS) ?
> + qa.part.rr_slots[pos] : 0;
> +
> + if (holder_cgid) {
> + scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(holder_cgid);
> + return;
> + }
> + } else if (owner >= 0 && owner < MAX_SUB_SCHEDS &&
> + qa.sub_sched_ctxs[owner].cgroup_id) {
> + if (scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(qa.sub_sched_ctxs[owner].cgroup_id))
> + __sync_fetch_and_add(&qa.sub_sched_ctxs[owner].nr_dsps, 1);
> + return;
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
Could tasks pinned exclusively to delegated CPUs get permanently stranded on
SHARED_DSQ here?
If a task is pinned to a child's CPU mask, qmap_enqueue() nudges it to a
delegated CPU's local DSQ. Since the parent lacks the ENQ capability, the
kernel rejects it and re-enqueues it with SCX_ENQ_REENQ, placing it into
SHARED_DSQ.
However, when a delegated CPU executes qmap_dispatch(), it calls
scx_bpf_sub_dispatch() and returns immediately without ever pulling from
SHARED_DSQ. The parent's own CPUs cannot pull it because their cpus_allowed
mask does not match the task, which seems to leave the task stalled.
[ ... ]
> @@ -1065,6 +1149,486 @@ static int lowpri_timerfn(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_timer *timer)
[ ... ]
> +__noinline void apply_partition(void)
> +{
[ ... ]
> + bpf_for(cid, 0, nr_cids) {
> + s32 o = qa.part.cid_owner[cid];
> +
> + if (cmask_test(cid, &qa.rr_cids.mask))
> + continue;
> + if (o >= 0 && o < MAX_SUB_SCHEDS)
> + cmask_set(cid, &qa.sub_sched_ctxs[o].granted_cids.mask);
> + else if (o == CID_SELF)
> + cmask_set(cid, &qa.self_cids.mask);
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
Does this miss adding newly acquired exclusive CPUs to idle_cids.mask if
they were already idle?
When a child scheduler is detached, its delegated CPUs are returned to
self_cids.mask by apply_partition(). If a returned CPU happens to be
physically idle at that moment, qmap_update_idle() is not re-triggered by
the kernel. Because qmap_update_idle() ignores idle transitions for CPUs not
currently in self_cids.mask, the CPU remains missing from idle_cids.mask.
Will this cause tasks queued in the BPF FIFOs to stall, since subsequent
enqueues will fail to pick the CPU via pick_direct_dispatch_cid() and won't
kick it?
[ ... ]
> @@ -1219,12 +1827,37 @@ void BPF_STRUCT_OPS(qmap_sub_detach, struct scx_sub_detach_args *args)
[ ... ]
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_SUB_SCHEDS; i++) {
> - if (qa.sub_sched_cgroup_ids[i] == args->ops->sub_cgroup_id) {
> - qa.sub_sched_cgroup_ids[i] = 0;
> - bpf_printk("detaching sub-sched[%d] on %s",
> - i, args->cgroup_path);
> - break;
> - }
> + if (qa.sub_sched_ctxs[i].cgroup_id != args->ops->sub_cgroup_id)
> + continue;
> +
> + qa.sub_sched_ctxs[i].cgroup_id = 0;
> + qa.sub_sched_ctxs[i].weight = 100;
> + cmask_init(&qa.sub_sched_ctxs[i].granted_cids.mask, 0, qa.nr_cids);
> + qa.nr_sub_scheds--;
> + bpf_printk("detaching sub-sched[%d] on %s", i, args->cgroup_path);
> + redistribute();
> + break;
> }
> }
[Severity: Medium]
Is it safe to modify the sub_sched_ctxs array locklessly here?
The kernel calls qmap_sub_detach() when a child cgroup is removed, zeroing
out granted_cids.mask and updating cgroup_id. Concurrently, userspace can
trigger repartition() or a BPF timer can trigger rr_advance(), both of which
call apply_partition().
Since apply_partition() reads and sets bits in these same masks concurrently:
apply_partition() {
...
if (o >= 0 && o < MAX_SUB_SCHEDS)
cmask_set(cid, &qa.sub_sched_ctxs[o].granted_cids.mask);
...
}
Can this data race corrupt the internal state and lead to skipped capability
revocations or invalid scheduling structures?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=35
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.