The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>,
	Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org>,
	Nippun Goel <nippung@calsoftinc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:54:42 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060109205442.GB3691@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43C2B1B7.635DDF0B@tv-sign.ru>

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 09:55:51PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't we still need rmb for the RUSAGE_SELF case? we do not take the
> > siglock for rusage self and the non c* signal fields are written to
> > at __exit_signal...
> 
> I think it is unneeded because RUSAGE_SELF case is "racy" anyway even
> if we held both locks, task_struct->xxx counters can change at any
> moment.
> 
> But may be you are right.

Hmm...access to task_struct->xxx has been racy, but accessing the 
signal->* counters were not.  What if read of the signal->utime  was  a 
hoisted read and signal->stime was a read after the counter is updated?  
This was not a possibility earlier no? 
 
> 
> > What is wrong with optimizing by not taking the siglock in RUSAGE_BOTH
> > and RUSAGE_CHILDREN?  I would like to add that in too unless  I am
> > missing something and the optimization is incorrect.
> 
> We can't have contention on ->siglock when need_lock == 0, so why should
> we optimize this case?

We would be saving 1 buslocked operation in that case (on some arches), a 
cacheline fetch for exclusive (since signal and sighand are on different memory
locations), and disabling/enabling onchip interrupts.  But yes, this would be a 
smaller optimization....Unless you have strong objections this can also 
go in?

Thanks,
Kiran

Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>

Index: linux-2.6.15-mm2/kernel/sys.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.15-mm2.orig/kernel/sys.c	2006-01-09 12:44:30.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.15-mm2/kernel/sys.c	2006-01-09 12:45:07.000000000 -0800
@@ -1730,14 +1730,16 @@ static void k_getrusage(struct task_stru
 	switch (who) {
 		case RUSAGE_BOTH:
 		case RUSAGE_CHILDREN:
-			spin_lock_irqsave(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
+			if (need_lock)
+				spin_lock_irqsave(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
 			utime = p->signal->cutime;
 			stime = p->signal->cstime;
 			r->ru_nvcsw = p->signal->cnvcsw;
 			r->ru_nivcsw = p->signal->cnivcsw;
 			r->ru_minflt = p->signal->cmin_flt;
 			r->ru_majflt = p->signal->cmaj_flt;
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
+			if (need_lock)
+				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
 
 			if (who == RUSAGE_CHILDREN)
 				break;


  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-09 20:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-12-24 17:52 [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threaded process at getrusage() Oleg Nesterov
2005-12-27 20:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-12-28 12:38   ` [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess " Oleg Nesterov
2005-12-28 18:33     ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2005-12-28 22:57       ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2005-12-30 17:57         ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-04 23:16           ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-01-05 19:17             ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-06  9:46               ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-01-06 17:23                 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-01-06 19:46                   ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-03-20 18:04                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-03-22 22:18                       ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-03-23 18:18                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-06 23:52                   ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-08 11:49                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-08 19:58                   ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-01-09 18:55                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-09 20:54                       ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai [this message]
2006-01-10 19:03                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-16 20:56                           ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-01-17 19:59                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-17 19:52                               ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-01-18  9:17                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-01-03 18:18         ` Christoph Lameter

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=20060109205442.GB3691@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=kiran@scalex86.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nippung@calsoftinc.com \
    --cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=shai@scalex86.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox