linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock

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: <20130816162056.GE24210@somewhere>
Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:20:57 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Thanks Frederic!
> 
> I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
> I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
> 
> Just one question below,
> 
> On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > @@ -499,12 +509,15 @@ u64 get_cpu_iowait_time_us(int cpu, u64 *last_update_time)
> >  	if (last_update_time)
> >  		*last_update_time = ktime_to_us(now);
> >  
> > -	if (ts->idle_active && nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) > 0) {
> > -		ktime_t delta = ktime_sub(now, ts->idle_entrytime);
> > -		iowait = ktime_add(ts->iowait_sleeptime, delta);
> > -	} else {
> > -		iowait = ts->iowait_sleeptime;
> > -	}
> > +	do {
> > +		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&ts->sleeptime_seq);
> > +		if (ts->idle_active && nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) > 0) {
> > +			ktime_t delta = ktime_sub(now, ts->idle_entrytime);
> > +			iowait = ktime_add(ts->iowait_sleeptime, delta);
> > +		} else {
> > +			iowait = ts->iowait_sleeptime;
> > +		}
> > +	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&ts->sleeptime_seq, seq));
> 
> Unless I missread this patch, this is still racy a bit.
> 
> Suppose it is called on CPU_0 and cpu == 1. Suppose that
> ts->idle_active == T and nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) == 1.
> 
> So we return iowait_sleeptime + delta.
> 
> Suppose that we call get_cpu_iowait_time_us() again. By this time
> the task which incremented ->nr_iowait can be woken up on another
> CPU, and it can do atomic_dec(rq->nr_iowait). So the next time
> we return iowait_sleeptime, and this is not monotonic again.

Hmm, by the time it decrements nr_iowait, it returned from schedule() and
so idle had flushed the pending iowait sleeptime.

May be you have some scenario in mind that I'm missing?

> 
> No?
> 
> 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/