From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@hp.com>,
mingo@elte.hu, adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081117221857.GA29423@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081117181655.8BDE9154221@magilla.localdomain>
On 11/17, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > > - if (!->signal)
> > > + if (->exit_state)
> > > return;
> >
> > Yes, unless I missed something again, this should work. I'll send
> > the (simple) patches soon, but I have no idea how to test them.
>
> That certainly will exclude the problem of crashing in the tick interrupt
> after exit_notify. Unfortunately, it's moving in an undesireable direction
> for the long run. That is, it loses from the accounting even more of the
> CPU time spent on the exit path.
Yes, I thought about this too.
But please note that currently this already happens for sub-threads (and
if we protect ->signal with rcu too), the exiting sub-thread does not
contribute to accounting after release_task(self). Also, when the last
thread exits the process can be reaped by its parent, but after that
the threads can still use CPU.
IOW, when ->exit_signal != 0 we already sent the notification to parent
with utime/stime, the parent can reap current at any moment before it
does the final schedule. I don't think we can do something here.
But if we make ->signal refcountable, we can improve the case with the
exiting subthreads at least.
(Just in case, anyway I completeley agree, this hack (and unlock_wait)
should be killed in 2.6.29).
> > However, I'm afraid there is another problem. On 32 bit cpus we can't
> > read "u64 sum_exec_runtime" atomically, and so thread_group_cputime()
> > can "overestimate" ->sum_exec_runtime by (up to) UINT_MAX if it races
> > with the thread which updates its per_cpu_ptr(.totals). This for example
> > means that check_process_timers() can fire the CPUCLOCK_SCHED timers
> > before time.
> >
> > No?
>
> Yes, I think you're right. The best solution that comes to mind off hand
> is to protect the update/read of that u64 with a seqcount_t on 32-bit.
Oh, but we need them to be per-cpu, and both read and write need memory
barriers... Not that I argue, this will fix the problem of course, just
I don't know how this impacts the perfomance.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-17 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1224694989.8431.23.camel@oberon>
[not found] ` <1225132746.14792.13.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com>
[not found] ` <1225219114.24204.37.camel@oberon>
2008-11-06 1:58 ` regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang Frank Mayhar
2008-11-06 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-06 15:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-06 15:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-06 16:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-06 23:52 ` Frank Mayhar
2008-11-07 8:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-07 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-07 18:10 ` Frank Mayhar
2008-11-07 20:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-10 14:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-10 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-10 15:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-10 18:00 ` Frank Mayhar
2008-11-14 2:42 ` Roland McGrath
2008-11-14 16:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-11-17 14:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-11-17 18:16 ` Roland McGrath
2008-11-17 22:18 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2008-11-17 21:49 ` Roland McGrath
2008-11-11 0:20 ` Ingo Oeser
2008-11-11 13:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-21 18:42 ` Petr Tesarik
2008-11-21 19:26 ` Frank Mayhar
2008-11-23 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-24 8:46 ` Petr Tesarik
2008-11-24 9:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-24 12:32 ` Petr Tesarik
2008-11-24 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-24 16:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-06 16:31 ` [PATCH] revert: " Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-06 21:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-06 21:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-11-07 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-13 16:00 ` Doug Chapman
2008-11-13 16:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-14 14:10 ` Doug Chapman
[not found] <20081105191211.c0316b94.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2008-11-06 12:59 ` regression introduced by - " Oleg Nesterov
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=20081117221857.GA29423@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=doug.chapman@hp.com \
--cc=fmayhar@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roland@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox