From: Ryan Newton <newton@meta.com>

This is a follow-on optimization to the prior commit which added a
lockless peek operation on DSQs. That implementation is correct and
simple, but elides several optimizations.

Previously, we read the first_task using the same slowpath, irrespective
of where we enqueue the task. With this change, we instead base the
update on what we know about the calling context. On both insert and
removal we can break down whether the change (1) definitely, (2) never,
or (3) sometimes changes first task. In some cases we know what the new
first task will be, and can set it more directly.

Signed-off-by: Ryan Newton <newton@meta.com>
---
 kernel/sched/ext.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
index fd0121c03311..1cb10aa9913a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
@@ -953,8 +953,11 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq,
 				container_of(rbp, struct task_struct,
 					     scx.dsq_priq);
 			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &prev->scx.dsq_list.node);
+			/* first task unchanged - no update needed */
 		} else {
 			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
+			/* new task is at head - use fastpath */
+			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
 		}
 	} else {
 		/* a FIFO DSQ shouldn't be using PRIQ enqueuing */
@@ -962,15 +965,20 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq,
 			scx_error(sch, "DSQ ID 0x%016llx already had PRIQ-enqueued tasks",
 				  dsq->id);
 
-		if (enq_flags & (SCX_ENQ_HEAD | SCX_ENQ_PREEMPT))
+		if (enq_flags & (SCX_ENQ_HEAD | SCX_ENQ_PREEMPT)) {
 			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
-		else
+			/* new task inserted at head - use fastpath */
+			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
+		} else {
+			bool was_empty;
+
+			was_empty = list_empty(&dsq->list);
 			list_add_tail(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
+			if (was_empty)
+				rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
+		}
 	}
 
-	/* even the add_tail code path may have changed the first element */
-	dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
-
 	/* seq records the order tasks are queued, used by BPF DSQ iterator */
 	dsq->seq++;
 	p->scx.dsq_seq = dsq->seq;
@@ -1023,9 +1031,15 @@ static void task_unlink_from_dsq(struct task_struct *p,
 		p->scx.dsq_flags &= ~SCX_TASK_DSQ_ON_PRIQ;
 	}
 
+	if (dsq->first_task == p) {
+		if (dsq->id & SCX_DSQ_FLAG_BUILTIN)
+			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task,
+			  list_next_entry(p, scx.dsq_list.node));
+		else
+			dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
+	}
 	list_del_init(&p->scx.dsq_list.node);
 	dsq_mod_nr(dsq, -1);
-	dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
 }
 
 static void dispatch_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
-- 
2.51.0

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 10:57:20PM -0400, Ryan Newton wrote:
> From: Ryan Newton <newton@meta.com>
> 
> This is a follow-on optimization to the prior commit which added a
> lockless peek operation on DSQs. That implementation is correct and
> simple, but elides several optimizations.
> 
> Previously, we read the first_task using the same slowpath, irrespective
> of where we enqueue the task. With this change, we instead base the
> update on what we know about the calling context. On both insert and
> removal we can break down whether the change (1) definitely, (2) never,
> or (3) sometimes changes first task. In some cases we know what the new
> first task will be, and can set it more directly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Newton <newton@meta.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/ext.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index fd0121c03311..1cb10aa9913a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -953,8 +953,11 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq,
>  				container_of(rbp, struct task_struct,
>  					     scx.dsq_priq);
>  			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &prev->scx.dsq_list.node);
> +			/* first task unchanged - no update needed */
>  		} else {
>  			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
> +			/* new task is at head - use fastpath */
> +			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		/* a FIFO DSQ shouldn't be using PRIQ enqueuing */
> @@ -962,15 +965,20 @@ static void dispatch_enqueue(struct scx_sched *sch, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq,
>  			scx_error(sch, "DSQ ID 0x%016llx already had PRIQ-enqueued tasks",
>  				  dsq->id);
>  
> -		if (enq_flags & (SCX_ENQ_HEAD | SCX_ENQ_PREEMPT))
> +		if (enq_flags & (SCX_ENQ_HEAD | SCX_ENQ_PREEMPT)) {
>  			list_add(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
> -		else
> +			/* new task inserted at head - use fastpath */
> +			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
> +		} else {
> +			bool was_empty;
> +
> +			was_empty = list_empty(&dsq->list);
>  			list_add_tail(&p->scx.dsq_list.node, &dsq->list);
> +			if (was_empty)
> +				rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task, p);
> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	/* even the add_tail code path may have changed the first element */
> -	dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
> -
>  	/* seq records the order tasks are queued, used by BPF DSQ iterator */
>  	dsq->seq++;
>  	p->scx.dsq_seq = dsq->seq;
> @@ -1023,9 +1031,15 @@ static void task_unlink_from_dsq(struct task_struct *p,
>  		p->scx.dsq_flags &= ~SCX_TASK_DSQ_ON_PRIQ;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (dsq->first_task == p) {
> +		if (dsq->id & SCX_DSQ_FLAG_BUILTIN)
> +			rcu_assign_pointer(dsq->first_task,
> +			  list_next_entry(p, scx.dsq_list.node));

nit: no need to split in two lines, it should fit in the 100 characters per
line limit.

> +		else
> +			dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
> +	}

However, from my comment in PATCH 1/3, if we allow to use
scx_bpf_dsq_peek() only with user DSQs this would become:

if (!(dsq->id & SCX_DSQ_FLAG_BUILTIN) && dsq->first_task == p)
	dsq_update_first_task(dsq);

>  	list_del_init(&p->scx.dsq_list.node);
>  	dsq_mod_nr(dsq, -1);
> -	dsq_update_first_task(dsq);
>  }
>  
>  static void dispatch_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

Thanks,
-Andrea