From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] posix_timers: do not account group_exec_runtime for dying autoreaped tasks
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:33:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130511003317.GB13340@somewhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367897750.14310.59.camel@Wailaba2>
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:35:50PM -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> Frederic,
>
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 01:18 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:04:09PM -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Forbids the cputimer to drift ahead of its process clock by
> > > blocking its update when a tick occurs while a autoreaping task
> > > is currently in do_exit() between the call to release_task() and
> > > its final call to schedule().
> > >
> > > Any task stats update after having called release_task() will
> > > be lost because they are added to the global process stats located
> > > in the signal struct from release_task().
> >
> > I wonder if this is real problem that the clock is ahead of the timer.
> > Have you seen any issue in practice with this?
>
> note that it is the timer that will be ahead because the process clock
> is the sum of past group tasks exec time plus current group tasks exec
> time. Few updates are missing in the past group tasks exec time counter
> in struct signal.
>
> The effect of this is failure of the unittest testing POSIX compliance
> in glibc rt/tst-cputimer1.c
>
> pseudo code of the test is:
>
> 1. call clock_gettime() to get now
> 2. Compute timer expiring time now+timer interval
> 3. call clock_gettime() when timer cb is called
> 4. Compare that clock_gettime() result is >= than computed expiring time
>
> The error is adding up as more thread exits and usually the test fails
> when testing periodic timers where threads are created to handle the
> timer timeouts.
I see. Ok if it breaks a glibc test, it seems like a good reason to fix it :)
Thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-11 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-29 18:04 [PATCH v3 1/3] posix_timers: do not account group_exec_runtime for dying autoreaped tasks Olivier Langlois
2013-05-06 23:18 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-05-07 3:35 ` Olivier Langlois
2013-05-11 0:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=20130511003317.GB13340@somewhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=olivier@trillion01.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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