| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:11:20 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable@...nel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: implement cpu_clock(cpu) high-speed time source,
take #2
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>
>>> Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time
>>> spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just
>>> excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
>>>
>> generally rq_clock() also includes idle time, so it should work fine
>> for this purpose. So, what do you think about the patch below - does
>> it suit Xen's purposes?
>>
>
> how about the patch below instead? (which, unlike the first one, happens
> to build and boot ;-)
>
Yes, that should be fine if its just based on sched_clock. Presumably
that means that any architecture (eg, s390) which chooses to implement
sched_clock as unstolen time will get good behaviour from softlockup as
well as the scheduler.
How does this interact with the sched_clock changes Andi just posted?
(Couple of comments below.)
> Ingo
>
> -------------->
> Subject: sched: implement cpu_clock(cpu) high-speed time source
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> Implement the cpu_clock(cpu) interface for kernel-internal use:
> high-speed (but slightly incorrect) per-cpu clock constructed from
> sched_clock().
>
> update blktrace and the softlockup-watchdog to use this new interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>
> ---
> block/blktrace.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> include/linux/sched.h | 7 +++++++
> kernel/sched.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/softlockup.c | 10 ++++++----
> 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
> +++ linux/block/blktrace.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void trace_note(struct blk_trace
> const int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> t->magic = BLK_IO_TRACE_MAGIC | BLK_IO_TRACE_VERSION;
> - t->time = sched_clock() - per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, cpu);
> + t->time = cpu_clock(cpu) - per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, cpu);
> t->device = bt->dev;
> t->action = action;
> t->pid = pid;
> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ void __blk_add_trace(struct blk_trace *b
>
> t->magic = BLK_IO_TRACE_MAGIC | BLK_IO_TRACE_VERSION;
> t->sequence = ++(*sequence);
> - t->time = sched_clock() - per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, cpu);
> + t->time = cpu_clock(cpu) - per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, cpu);
>
What's this measuring here? Time spend in IO? Wouldn't it be better
off with a measurement of real monotonic time?
> t->sector = sector;
> t->bytes = bytes;
> t->action = what;
> @@ -488,17 +488,17 @@ void blk_trace_shutdown(request_queue_t
> }
>
> /*
> - * Average offset over two calls to sched_clock() with a gettimeofday()
> + * Average offset over two calls to cpu_clock() with a gettimeofday()
> * in the middle
> */
> -static void blk_check_time(unsigned long long *t)
> +static void blk_check_time(unsigned long long *t, int this_cpu)
> {
> unsigned long long a, b;
> struct timeval tv;
>
> - a = sched_clock();
> + a = cpu_clock(this_cpu);
> do_gettimeofday(&tv);
> - b = sched_clock();
> + b = cpu_clock(this_cpu);
>
Is this measuring what it thinks its measuring?
> *t = tv.tv_sec * 1000000000 + tv.tv_usec * 1000;
> *t -= (a + b) / 2;
> @@ -510,16 +510,16 @@ static void blk_check_time(unsigned long
> static void blk_trace_check_cpu_time(void *data)
> {
> unsigned long long *t;
> - int cpu = get_cpu();
> + int this_cpu = get_cpu();
>
> - t = &per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, cpu);
> + t = &per_cpu(blk_trace_cpu_offset, this_cpu);
>
> /*
> * Just call it twice, hopefully the second call will be cache hot
> * and a little more precise
> */
> - blk_check_time(t);
> - blk_check_time(t);
> + blk_check_time(t, this_cpu);
> + blk_check_time(t, this_cpu);
>
> put_cpu();
> }
> Index: linux/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ linux/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1327,6 +1327,13 @@ static inline int set_cpus_allowed(struc
> #endif
>
> extern unsigned long long sched_clock(void);
> +
> +/*
> + * For kernel-internal use: high-speed (but slightly incorrect) per-cpu
> + * clock constructed from sched_clock():
> + */
> +extern unsigned long long cpu_clock(int cpu);
> +
> extern unsigned long long
> task_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *task);
>
> Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,23 @@ static inline unsigned long long rq_cloc
> #define task_rq(p) cpu_rq(task_cpu(p))
> #define cpu_curr(cpu) (cpu_rq(cpu)->curr)
>
> +/*
> + * For kernel-internal use: high-speed (but slightly incorrect) per-cpu
> + * clock constructed from sched_clock():
> + */
> +unsigned long long cpu_clock(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long long now;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
> + now = rq_clock(rq);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> +
> + return now;
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> /* Change a task's ->cfs_rq if it moves across CPUs */
> static inline void set_task_cfs_rq(struct task_struct *p)
> Index: linux/kernel/softlockup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/softlockup.c
> +++ linux/kernel/softlockup.c
> @@ -41,14 +41,16 @@ static struct notifier_block panic_block
> * resolution, and we don't need to waste time with a big divide when
> * 2^30ns == 1.074s.
> */
> -static unsigned long get_timestamp(void)
> +static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu)
> {
> - return sched_clock() >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
> + return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
> }
>
> void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> {
> - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp();
> + int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> +
> + per_cpu(touch_timestamp, this_cpu) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
>
> @@ -94,7 +96,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
> return;
> }
>
> - now = get_timestamp();
> + now = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
>
> /* Wake up the high-prio watchdog task every second: */
> if (now > (touch_timestamp + 1))
>
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists