[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150806141820.GA8258@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:18:20 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, terry.rudd@...com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] timer: Improve itimers scalability
On 08/04, Jason Low wrote:
>
> @@ -973,13 +981,6 @@ static void check_process_timers(struct task_struct *tsk,
> virt_expires = check_timers_list(++timers, firing, utime);
> sched_expires = check_timers_list(++timers, firing, sum_sched_runtime);
>
> - /*
> - * Check for the special case process timers.
> - */
> - check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_PROF], &prof_expires, ptime,
> - SIGPROF);
> - check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_VIRT], &virt_expires, utime,
> - SIGVTALRM);
> soft = READ_ONCE(sig->rlim[RLIMIT_CPU].rlim_cur);
> if (soft != RLIM_INFINITY) {
> unsigned long psecs = cputime_to_secs(ptime);
> @@ -1010,11 +1011,21 @@ static void check_process_timers(struct task_struct *tsk,
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Check for the special case process timers.
> + */
> + check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_PROF], &prof_expires, ptime,
> + SIGPROF);
> + check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_VIRT], &virt_expires, utime,
> + SIGVTALRM);
> +
Not sure I understand this part... looks wrong actually, please note
that RLIMIT_CPU block above may need to update prof_expires _after_
check_cpu_itimer(), or I am totally confused.
> if (READ_ONCE(sig->cputimer.running)) {
> struct task_cputime group_sample;
>
> + /*
> + * If another thread in the group is already checking
> + * for the thread group cputimer, then we will skip that.
> + */
> + if (READ_ONCE(sig->cputimer.is_checking_timer))
> + return 0;
> +
Cosmetic, I won't insist, but this is not symmetrical to ->running check,
if (READ_ONCE(sig->cputimer.running) &&
!READ_ONCE(sig->cputimer.is_checking_timer))
looks a littke bit better to me.
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