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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236380615.4637.67.camel@alok-dev1>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:03:35 -0800
From:	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Process accounting in interrupt diabled cases

Hi,

I am not sure, but I think this may be a process accounting bug.

If interrupts are disabled for a considerable amount of time ( say
multiple ticks), the process accounting code will still account a single
tick for such cases, on the next interrupt tick.
Shouldn't we have some way to fix that case like we do for NO_HZ
restart_sched_tick case, where we account for multiple idle ticks.
 
IOW, doesn't process accounting need to account for these cases when
interrupts are disabled for more than one tick period?

I stumbled across this while trying to find a solution to figure out the
amount of stolen time from Linux, when it is running under a hypervisor.
One of the solutions could be to ask the hypervisor directly for this
info, but in my quest to find a generic solution I think the below would
work too.
The total process time accounted by the system on a cpu ( system, idle,
wait and etc) when deducted from the amount TSC counter has advanced
since boot, should give us this info about the cputime stolen from the
kernel  (by either hypervisor or other cases like say, SMI) on a
particular CPU. 
i.e. PCPU_STOLEN = (TSC since boot)  - (PCPU-idle + system + wait + ...)

But for this to work the above problem about process accounting in
interrupt disabled cases need to work correctly. 

Let me know if I overlooking any case where the above assumption might
not hold true.

Thanks,
Alok



--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ