From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sanjay Rao <srao@redhat.com>, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:22:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53EA6992.8060608@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140812191218.GA15210@redhat.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2014 03:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> Back in 2009, Spencer Candland pointed out there is a race with
>> do_sys_times, where multiple threads calling do_sys_times can
>> sometimes get decreasing results.
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/522
>>
>> As a result of that discussion, some of the code in do_sys_times
>> was moved under a spinlock.
>>
>> However, that does not seem to actually make the race go away on
>> larger systems. One obvious remaining race is that after one
>> thread is about to return from do_sys_times, it is preempted by
>> another thread, which also runs do_sys_times, and stores a larger
>> value in the shared variable than what the first thread got.
>>
>> This race is on the kernel/userspace boundary, and not fixable
>> with spinlocks.
>
> Not sure I understand...
>
> Afaics, the problem is that a single thread can observe the
> decreasing (say) sum_exec_runtime if it calls do_sys_times() twice
> without the lock.
>
> This is because it can account the exiting sub-thread twice if it
> races with __exit_signal() which increments sig->sum_sched_runtime,
> but this exiting thread can still be visible to
> thread_group_cputime().
>
> IOW, it is not actually about decreasing, the problem is that the
> lockless thread_group_cputime() can return the wrong result, and
> the next ys_times() can show the right value.
Hmmm, that is not what the test case does.
The test case simply calls times() once in each thread, and saves
the value in a global variable for the next thread to use.
Does the seq_lock in task_cputime() prevent the problem you are
describing, or does the exit/zombie reaping code need to block the
seq_lock while it moves the stats from the zombie to the group?
- --
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT6mmSAAoJEM553pKExN6D+EkH/2BexZ8XfKpHAKfkidIhPrOy
nr5q8WhKU1mJmdEULNx6NQxAjRnpORTOfDElwRT1gzXqOyXrTxXZ207/anezhstU
kyu5wRNBz/pilXPDzVsiF+DqTxoBnVOIc0eltQ00jmUden08eVEfEY5mjevCJalz
2AbWFa8QQZgtGSCZB1UPaUF6NHTu/Z35u9UTEIkLirLCqfIYPz325Wdfs+W+fggS
8vEgHhO50BrIAm9HCO/vgY8SCAU/0Pml73ABV3+4sB7dnYVgDkYXzS0iMimuAcZ/
qL0NhRrKH4sRxGQXBlQv87GgMpR9Tr4RVFK6eH9xwjVwthYXnYeDTbYryjpmdco=
=haSd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-12 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-12 18:25 [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock Rik van Riel
2014-08-12 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-12 19:22 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2014-08-12 22:27 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 17:35 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 18:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 18:25 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 18:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 18:57 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 21:03 ` [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 0:43 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 1:57 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 13:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 2:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-15 14:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 22:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 13:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 13:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 17:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 18:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 5:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-15 6:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-15 9:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-15 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-15 16:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 16:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 17:25 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-15 18:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 14:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 15:37 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 16:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 17:36 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 18:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 19:03 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 2:14 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-15 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 21:03 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:40 ` [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 17:50 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 6:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-13 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 13:24 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 13:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 14:09 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53EA6992.8060608@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fmayhar@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=srao@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.