From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753933AbZCXViq (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:38:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751706AbZCXVih (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:38:37 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:58766 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298AbZCXVig (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:38:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:34:36 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, ia6432@inbox.ru, roland@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [tip:timers/urgent] posix timers: fix RLIMIT_CPU && fork() Message-ID: <20090324213436.GA22254@redhat.com> References: <20090323193411.GA17514@redhat.com> <20090324182651.GA13408@redhat.com> <20090324210536.GB14067@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324210536.GB14067@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/24, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 03/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > Commit-ID: 37bebc70d7ad4144c571d74500db3bb26ec0c0eb > > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/37bebc70d7ad4144c571d74500db3bb26ec0c0eb > > > Author: Oleg Nesterov > > > AuthorDate: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:34:11 +0100 > > > Committer: Ingo Molnar > > > CommitDate: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:43:35 +0100 > > > > > > posix timers: fix RLIMIT_CPU && fork() > > > > > > See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12911 > > > > > > copy_signal() copies signal->rlim, but RLIMIT_CPU is "lost". Because > > > posix_cpu_timers_init_group() sets cputime_expires.prof_exp = 0 and thus > > > fastpath_timer_check() returns false unless we have other cpu timers. > > > > > > This is the minimal fix for 2.6.29 (tested) and 2.6.28. The patch is not > > > optimal, > > > > Ingo, please drop this patch, it is very suboptimal. > > suboptimal why? Because this patch provokes the slow path on every tick if this process has rlim[RLIMIT_CPU].rlim_cur != RLIM_INFINITY, even if RLIMIT_CPU is not expired yet. So I think the initial patch I sent (which modifies copy_signal) is better, but first I'd like to re-check the code once again. Oleg.