linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/10] taskstats: Fix exit CPU time accounting

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:23:04 +0200
From:	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	John stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/10] taskstats: Fix exit CPU time accounting

Hello Oleg,

On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 20:11 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I think one place was "khelper" (kmod.c). It is created with
> > kernel_thread() and it exits without having accounted the times with
> > sys_wait() to the parent's ctimes
> 
> No. Well yes, it is not accounted, but this is not because it is
> kthread.
> 
> To simplify the discussion, lets talk about utime/cutime only,
> and lets forget about the multithreading.
> 
> It is very simple, currently linux accounts the exiting task's
> utime and adds its to ->cutime _only_ if parent does do_wait().
> If parent ignores SIGCHLD, the child reaps itself and it is not
> accounted.
> 
> I do not know why it was done this way, but I'm afraid we can't
> change this historical behaviour.

Ok thanks, I didn't know this. So time can disappear, if the parent
ignores SIGCHLD.

I am a bit disappointed, because I thought by looking at all tasks of a
system it should be possible to evaluate all consumed CPU time from now
to the time where the system has been booted. That would have been a
nice thing.

> > Ok, the problem is that I did not consider exiting threads that are no
> > thread group leaders. When they exit the ctime of the parent is not
> > updated. Instead the time is accumulated in the signal struct.
> 
> I think I am a bit confused, but see above. With or without threads
> the whole process can exit without accounting.

Sorry that I couldn't explain my thoughts clear enough, believe me, I
tried my best :-)

Michael



--
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/