[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1109011226160.2723@ionos>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:39:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: process time < thread time?
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The untested patch below should cure this.
> >
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > index 58f405b..42378cb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > struct task_cputime *times)
> > do {
> > times->utime = cputime_add(times->utime, t->utime);
> > times->stime = cputime_add(times->stime, t->stime);
> > - times->sum_exec_runtime += t->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> > + times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
> > } while_each_thread(tsk, t);
> > out:
> > rcu_read_unlock();
>
> I think we just deadlocked:
That's why I said untested :)
> cpu_clock_sample_group()
> CPUCLOCK_SCHED: thread_group_sched_runtime()
> task_rq_lock() <-.
> thread_group_cputime() |
> task_sched_runtime() |
> task_rq_lock() ------'
>
>
> Also, having to take locks here is sad, but yeah if we want to cure this
> there's not much we can do about that.
Yeah :(
--
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