[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53EC176D.6080201@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:57:01 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with
seqlock
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/13/2014 08:43 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:03:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c +++
>> b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c @@ -272,22 +272,8 @@ static int
>> posix_cpu_clock_get_task(struct task_struct *tsk, if
>> (same_thread_group(tsk, current)) err =
>> cpu_clock_sample(which_clock, tsk, &rtn); } else { - unsigned
>> long flags; - struct sighand_struct *sighand; - - /* - *
>> while_each_thread() is not yet entirely RCU safe, - * keep
>> locking the group while sampling process - * clock for now. -
>> */ - sighand = lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags); - if (!sighand)
>> - return err; - if (tsk == current ||
>> thread_group_leader(tsk)) err =
>> cpu_clock_sample_group(which_clock, tsk, &rtn); - -
>> unlock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags); }
>
> I'm worried about such lockless solution based on RCU or read
> seqcount because we lose the guarantee that an update is
> immediately visible by all subsequent readers.
>
> Say CPU 0 updates the thread time and both CPU 1 and CPU 2 right
> after that call clock_gettime(), with the spinlock we were
> guaranteed to see the new update. Now with a pure seqlock read
> approach, we guarantee a read sequence coherency but we don't
> guarantee the freshest update result.
>
> So that looks like a source of non monotonic results.
Which update are you worried about, specifically?
The seq_write_lock to update the usage stat in p->signal will lock out
the seqlock read side used to check those results.
Is there another kind of thing read by cpu_clock_sample_group that you
believe is not excluded by the seq_lock?
- --
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT7BdtAAoJEM553pKExN6DngEH/1CJuBb6xij08AoZNQuW4WNQ
geKakADsYTz8FmutbGi+lJEHNKAMZQ5wYbyFNczPAX/fVJsOlC92Qtfwy5z/VupN
QzlRHh79ZJR5/6xGddlu/8LjGrMIXwKqShIeKtTzoENS+rxA82l42zoXTagal4yX
Peb5/Q7cBMg9pFZzUMITEJssQhDtyTN1rXiU5IsEG54PhDbSgFk7HK1cO46tRefb
x1WbUKZKUViVKnoKYhJqd6FDSWuPtL5EpebvMVj9TZ29JBQTMDGx8saUezjuY0YL
STAv/wqigmbbcNnloJpr3gO1iJMkknv3jHk6Bfv1Dil8Um1D3mBAAKFK+Ov8Rk0=
=kU1O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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