[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100326214906.GA18467@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:49:06 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Spencer Candland <spencer@...ehost.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] cputimers/proc: do_task_stat()->task_times()
can race with getrusage()
On 03/26, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2010-03-24 21:45:50]:
>
> > do_task_stat()->task_times() can race with getrusage(), they both can
> > try to update task->prev_Xtime at the same time.
> >
> > Remove this bit of d180c5bc "sched: Introduce task_times() to replace
> > task_{u,s}time()".
>
> One of the reasons for adding this accuracy was to avoid sampling
> based noise and errors that occur with utime and stime.
>
> As long as there is no preemption during the assignment, I think we
> should be OK.
I don't think preemp_disable() can help. Probably we can use task_lock().
As for do_task_stat()->thread_group_times(), I think we can make it
rc-safe without breaking /bin/top.
1. add spin_lock_irqsave(&sig->cputimer.lock) around
sig->prev_Xtime = max(...)
2. Add a couple of barriers into thread_group_cputime()
and __exit_signal() so that without ->siglock we can
never overestimate utime/stime if we race with exit.
If we underestimate these values, this should be fine:
- the error can't be "systematic", the next read from
/prod/pid/stat will see the updated values
- the prev_Xtime logic in thread_group_times() ensures
the reported time can never go back.
IOW: at worse, cat /proc/pid/stat can miss the time
which the exited thread spent on CPU after the previous
read of /proc/pid/stat. This looks absolutely harmless,
the next read will see this time.
Probably we can even detect this case if we look at
sig->nr_threads and retry.
I'll try to make patches unless someone has a better idea.
I just can't accept the fact that we are doing while_each_thread()
under ->siglock here ;)
Oleg.
--
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