| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220811124958.GB3284884@lothringen>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:49:58 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Lihua (lihua, ran)" <hucool.lihua@...wei.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] Reading /proc/stat has a time backward issue
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 08:23:46PM +0800, Lihua (lihua, ran) wrote:
> ping...
>
> Your suggestions are valuable, I don't have a good way to fix this.
>
> thanks all.
>
> 在 2022/8/4 15:44, Lihua (lihua, ran) 写道:
> > ping...
> >
> > Any good suggestions?
> >
> > thanks all.
> >
> > 在 2022/7/27 12:02, Lihua (lihua, ran) 写道:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I found a problem that the statistical time goes backward, the value read first is 319, and the value read again is 318. As follows：
> > > first：
> > > cat /proc/stat | grep cpu1
> > > cpu1 319 0 496 41665 0 0 0 0 0 0
> > > then：
> > > cat /proc/stat | grep cpu1
> > > cpu1 318 0 497 41674 0 0 0 0 0 0
> > >
> > > Time goes back, which is counterintuitive.
> > >
> > > After debug this, I found that the problem is caused by the implementation of kcpustat_cpu_fetch_vtime. As follows：
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > First:
> > > show_stat():
> > > ->kcpustat_cpu_fetch()
> > > ->kcpustat_cpu_fetch_vtime()
> > > ->cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] = kcpustat_cpu(cpu) + vtime->utime + delta; rq->curr is in user mod
> > > ---> When CPU1 rq->curr running on userspace, need add utime and delta
> > > ---> rq->curr->vtime->utime is less than 1 tick
> > > Then:
> > > show_stat():
> > > ->kcpustat_cpu_fetch()
> > > ->kcpustat_cpu_fetch_vtime()
> > > ->cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] = kcpustat_cpu(cpu); rq->curr is in kernel mod
> > > ---> When CPU1 rq->curr running on kernel space, just got kcpustat
> > >
> > > Because the values of utime、 stime and delta are temporarily written to cpustat. Therefore, there are two problems read from /proc/stat:
> > > 1. There may be a regression phenomenon;
> > > 2. When there are many tasks, the statistics are not accurate enough when utime and stime do not exceed one TICK.
> > > The time goes back is counterintuitive, and I want to discuss whether there is a good solution without compromising performance.
I see...
Does the following help? (only built tested)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
index 78a233d43757..410e35e178ac 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -802,6 +802,16 @@ void vtime_init_idle(struct task_struct *t, int cpu)
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
+u64 static vtime_delta_filtered(u64 val, struct vtime *vtime)
+{
+ u64 delta = val + vtime_delta(vtime);
+
+ if (delta >= TICK_NSEC)
+ return delta;
+ else
+ return 0;
+}
+
u64 task_gtime(struct task_struct *t)
{
struct vtime *vtime = &t->vtime;
@@ -816,7 +826,7 @@ u64 task_gtime(struct task_struct *t)
gtime = t->gtime;
if (vtime->state == VTIME_GUEST)
- gtime += vtime->gtime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ gtime += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
} while (read_seqcount_retry(&vtime->seqcount, seq));
@@ -832,7 +842,6 @@ bool task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
{
struct vtime *vtime = &t->vtime;
unsigned int seq;
- u64 delta;
int ret;
if (!vtime_accounting_enabled()) {
@@ -853,16 +862,15 @@ bool task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
continue;
ret = true;
- delta = vtime_delta(vtime);
/*
* Task runs either in user (including guest) or kernel space,
* add pending nohz time to the right place.
*/
if (vtime->state == VTIME_SYS)
- *stime += vtime->stime + delta;
+ *stime += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->stime, vtime);
else
- *utime += vtime->utime + delta;
+ *utime += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->utime, vtime);
} while (read_seqcount_retry(&vtime->seqcount, seq));
return ret;
@@ -897,9 +905,9 @@ static int vtime_state_fetch(struct vtime *vtime, int cpu)
static u64 kcpustat_user_vtime(struct vtime *vtime)
{
if (vtime->state == VTIME_USER)
- return vtime->utime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ return vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->utime, vtime);
else if (vtime->state == VTIME_GUEST)
- return vtime->gtime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ return vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
return 0;
}
@@ -932,7 +940,7 @@ static int kcpustat_field_vtime(u64 *cpustat,
switch (usage) {
case CPUTIME_SYSTEM:
if (state == VTIME_SYS)
- *val += vtime->stime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ *val += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->stime, vtime);
break;
case CPUTIME_USER:
if (task_nice(tsk) <= 0)
@@ -944,11 +952,11 @@ static int kcpustat_field_vtime(u64 *cpustat,
break;
case CPUTIME_GUEST:
if (state == VTIME_GUEST && task_nice(tsk) <= 0)
- *val += vtime->gtime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ *val += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
break;
case CPUTIME_GUEST_NICE:
if (state == VTIME_GUEST && task_nice(tsk) > 0)
- *val += vtime->gtime + vtime_delta(vtime);
+ *val += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
break;
default:
break;
@@ -1001,7 +1009,6 @@ static int kcpustat_cpu_fetch_vtime(struct kernel_cpustat *dst,
do {
u64 *cpustat;
- u64 delta;
int state;
seq = read_seqcount_begin(&vtime->seqcount);
@@ -1017,27 +1024,25 @@ static int kcpustat_cpu_fetch_vtime(struct kernel_cpustat *dst,
if (state < VTIME_SYS)
continue;
- delta = vtime_delta(vtime);
-
/*
* Task runs either in user (including guest) or kernel space,
* add pending nohz time to the right place.
*/
if (state == VTIME_SYS) {
- cpustat[CPUTIME_SYSTEM] += vtime->stime + delta;
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_SYSTEM] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->stime, vtime);
} else if (state == VTIME_USER) {
if (task_nice(tsk) > 0)
- cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE] += vtime->utime + delta;
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->utime, vtime);
else
- cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] += vtime->utime + delta;
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->utime, vtime);
} else {
WARN_ON_ONCE(state != VTIME_GUEST);
if (task_nice(tsk) > 0) {
- cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST_NICE] += vtime->gtime + delta;
- cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE] += vtime->gtime + delta;
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST_NICE] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
} else {
- cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST] += vtime->gtime + delta;
- cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] += vtime->gtime + delta;
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
+ cpustat[CPUTIME_USER] += vtime_delta_filtered(vtime->gtime, vtime);
}
}
} while (read_seqcount_retry(&vtime->seqcount, seq));
Powered by blists - more mailing lists