linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuacct: per-cgroup utime/stime statistics

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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090311153434.GB16769@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:04:34 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuacct: per-cgroup utime/stime statistics - v1

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-11 09:38:12]:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:12:08 +0530
> Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Based on the comments received during my last post
> > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/25/129), here is a fresh attempt
> > to get per-cgroup utime/stime statistics as part of cpuacct controller.
> > 
> > This patch adds a new file cpuacct.stat which displays two stats:
> > utime and stime. I wasn't too sure about the usefulness of providing
> > per-cgroup guest and steal times and hence not including them here.
> > 
> > Note that I am using percpu_counter for collecting these two stats.
> > Since percpu_counter subsystem doesn't protect the readside, readers could
> > theoritically obtain incorrect values for these stats on 32bit systems.
> 
> Using percpu_counter_read() means that .. but is it okay to ignore "batch"
> number ? (see FBC_BATCH)
>

FBC_BATCH? Thats gone..no? We have dynamic batches now, IIRC. Could
you please elaborate on your comment?
 
> 
> > I hope occasional wrong values is not too much of a concern for
> > statistics like this. If it is a problem, we have to either fix
> > percpu_counter or do it all by ourselves as Kamezawa attempted
> > for cpuacct.usage (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/4/14)
> > 
> Hmm, percpu_counter_sum() is bad ?
> 

Yes, but we need to sum somewhere..  user space summing will not be
atomic, we'll get several snapshots of per CPU data and summing it
might not yield the correct answers.

> BTW, I'm not sure but don't we need special handling if
> CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y ?

Good point. Bharata, with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING, utime and stime
is accounted for within the architecture.

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/