__bfq_deactivate_entity(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

✨ __bfq_deactivate_entity πŸ’…

Okay so bestie, this one is from the Kernel API Manual, and it's a kernel-level function for the BFQ scheduler β€” deep lore, I know, but stay with me 🫢


🌸 NAME 🌸

__bfq_deactivate_entity β€” updates sched_data and the service trees for an entity, so the whole thing represents that entity as inactive ✨ Like, we're packing up its little desk and marking it "away" πŸŽ€


πŸ¦‹ SYNOPSIS πŸ¦‹

bool __bfq_deactivate_entity (struct bfq_entity *entity , bool
ins_into_idle_tree );

Yep, it returns a bool, takes a struct bfq_entity * and a bool, and no, we do not ask questions about the return value here β€” that's just how it is, periodt πŸ’…


🌈 ARGUMENTS 🌈

  • entity β€” the entity being deactivated, aka the main character of this little operation πŸ‘‘
  • ins_into_idle_tree β€” if this is false, the entity will not be put into the idle tree. That's it, that's the whole rule 😭

πŸ’– DESCRIPTION πŸ’–

If it's necessary and allowed, it puts entity into the idle tree. Cute, simple, conditional.

NOTE: entity may be on no tree at all if it's in service. Not a bug, just a vibe β€” don't come for me, that's literally what the manpage says πŸ’€

πŸ”₯ SEE ALSO πŸ”₯

Kernel file ./block/bfq-wf2q.c, plus this entire friend group of functions, all of them, no cap:

Literally the whole squad, iykyk 🧚


And that's the tea, bestie πŸ“ This page lives under ./block, dated October 2026, and it's the __bfq_deactivate_entity(9) page β€” go forth and deactivate responsibly πŸ’œ

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from