linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: Ensure correct utime and stime proportion

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: <bd275aff-61dd-557f-5b91-da4ce82f9501@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 21:21:15 +0800
From:   Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: Ensure correct utime and stime proportion

On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0. 
> 
>> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
>> run-sleep patterns, and because two different clocks, it
>> is possible to have the following condition:
>>   rtime_0 < utime_0 (as with little stime_0)
> 
> I don't follow... what?
> 
> Why are you, and why do you think it makes sense to, compare rtime_0
> against utime_0 ?
> 
> The [us]time_0 are, per your earlier definition, ticks. They're not an
> actual measure of time. Do not compare the two, that makes no bloody
> sense.
> 

[us]time_0 is task_struct:utime{stime}, I cited directly from
cputime_adjust(), both in nanoseconds. I assumed "rtime_0 < utime_0"
here to simple the following proof to help explain the problem we met.