[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101229132130.GA16349@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:21:30 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
torbenh <torbenh@....de>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
roland@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] Reading POSIX CPU timer from outside the
process.
On 12/28, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 17:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> > > - if (!p || !(CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) ?
> > > - same_thread_group(p, current) : has_group_leader_pid(p))) {
> > > + if (!p || (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) &&
> > > + same_thread_group(p, current) && !has_group_leader_pid(p)))
> > > error = -EINVAL;
> > > - }
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > How so? For example, with this change
> > clock_getres(MAKE_THREAD_CPUCLOCK(pid_of_sub_thread)) won't work, no?
> >
> I tested all the clock_getres() calls that came to my mind (at least the
> one that are possible from an userspace program), and they always worked
> because of this (still in check_clock):
>
> const pid_t pid = CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock);
>
> if (pid == 0)
> return 0;
>
> Which triggers all the times,
No, please note pid_of_sub_thread above.
> The whole point was about, given the current implementation of
> clock_getcpuclockid done by glibc, can we remove that "failed with
> success" (showed in the changelog) thing and come up with some
> meaningful clockid for that situation? It's more than possible for the
> answer to be no!!! :-P
I think we should change glibc if clock_getcpuclockid() doesn't work,
please see below.
> > I think, if we want to remove this limitation, we need something
> > like the patch below. If it doesn't help, we should fix glibc.
> >
> > --- x/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > +++ x/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > @@ -39,10 +39,8 @@ static int check_clock(const clockid_t w
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> > - if (!p || !(CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) ?
> > - same_thread_group(p, current) : has_group_leader_pid(p))) {
> > + if (!p || !(CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) || has_group_leader_pid(p)))
> > error = -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> Which won't work because CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) is always false
> in this case.
I guess, this is because glibc passes MAKE_PROCESS_CLOCK() id, right?
But we shouldn't add the hacks to the kernel to hide the limitations
in glibc.
> BTW, again, I see your point, the fix might need to happen at glibc
> level. I'll check that and come back if I find something interesting.
Yes, please.
BTW. What is the test-case? I am looking at http://gitorious.org/clockid,
I guess it is clockid.c...
You do not need clock_getcpuclockid() at all. In fact I do not really
understand what this helper should actually do, probably it is only
needed to validate the pid. You can simply use MAKE_THREAD_CPUCLOCK()
to sample a single thread via clock_gettime().
IOW. Unless I missed something, with this patch, the only problem
is that getcpuclockid() always assumes MAKE_PROCESS_CPUCLOCK(),
I do not think this is the kernel problem.
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