linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] delayacct: Use sched

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: <YJQIopjVwzBjxg4n@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 11:17:54 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, bsingharora@...il.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        maz@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] delayacct: Use sched_clock()

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 04:17:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:59:11AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:59:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > @@ -42,10 +42,9 @@ void __delayacct_tsk_init(struct task_st
> > >   * Finish delay accounting for a statistic using its timestamps (@start),
> > >   * accumalator (@total) and @count
> > >   */
> > > -static void delayacct_end(raw_spinlock_t *lock, u64 *start, u64 *total,
> > > -			  u32 *count)
> > > +static void delayacct_end(raw_spinlock_t *lock, u64 *start, u64 *total, u32 *count)
> > >  {
> > > -	s64 ns = ktime_get_ns() - *start;
> > > +	s64 ns = local_clock() - *start;
> > 
> > I don't think this is safe. These time sections that have preemption
> > and migration enabled and so might span multiple CPUs. local_clock()
> > could end up behind *start, AFAICS.
> 
> Only if you have really crummy hardware, and in that case the drift is
> bounded by around 1 tick. Also, this function actually checks: ns > 0.

Oh, I didn't realize it was that close. I just went off the dramatic
warnings on cpu_clock() :-) But yeah, that seems plenty accurate for
this purpose.

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>