Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock

Rik van Riel
2014-08-13T18:27:33Z

On 08/13/2014 02:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:22:30 +0200
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>
>>> To simplify, lets suppose that we only need sum_exec_runtime.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can do something like this
>>
>> That would probably work, indeed.
>
> OK, perhaps I'll try to make a patch tomorrow for review.
>
>> However, it turns out that a seqcount doesn't look too badly either.
>
> Well, I disagree. This is more complex, and this adds yet another lock
> which only protects the stats...

The other lock is what can tell us that there is a writer active
NOW, which may be useful when it comes to guaranteeing forward
progress for readers when there are lots of threads exiting...

>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -461,6 +461,7 @@ struct sighand_struct {
>> atomic_t count;
>> struct k_sigaction action[_NSIG];
>> spinlock_t siglock;
>> + seqcount_t stats_seq; /* write nests inside spinlock */
>
> No, no, at least it should go to signal_struct. Unlike ->sighand, ->signal
> is stable as long as task_struct can't go away.

I can move it to signal_struct, no problem.

>> void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
>> {
>> struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
>> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>> cputime_t utime, stime;
>> struct task_struct *t;
>> -
>> - times->utime = sig->utime;
>> - times->stime = sig->stime;
>> - times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
>> + int seq;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> - /* make sure we can trust tsk->thread_group list */
>> - if (!likely(pid_alive(tsk)))
>> + sighand = rcu_dereference(tsk->sighand);
>> + if (unlikely(!sighand))
>> goto out;
>>
>> - t = tsk;
>> do {
>> - task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime);
>> - times->utime += utime;
>> - times->stime += stime;
>> - times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
>> - } while_each_thread(tsk, t);
>> + seq = read_seqcount_begin(&sighand->stats_seq);
>> + times->utime = sig->utime;
>> + times->stime = sig->stime;
>> + times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
>> +
>> + /* make sure we can trust tsk->thread_group list */
>> + if (!likely(pid_alive(tsk)))
>> + goto out;
>
> Whatever we do, we should convert thread_group_cputime() to use
> for_each_thread() first().

What is the advantage of for_each_thread over while_each_thread,
besides getting rid of that t = tsk line?

>> @@ -781,14 +781,14 @@ static void posix_cpu_timer_get(struct k_itimer *timer, struct itimerspec *itp)
>> cpu_clock_sample(timer->it_clock, p, &now);
>> } else {
>> struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>> - unsigned long flags;
>>
>> /*
>> * Protect against sighand release/switch in exit/exec and
>> * also make timer sampling safe if it ends up calling
>> * thread_group_cputime().
>> */
>> - sighand = lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + sighand = rcu_dereference(p->sighand);
>
> This looks unneeded at first glance.

You are right. This change should be made to posix_cpu_clock_get_task
and not posix_cpu_timer_get. I think this is where I got distracted
by the way the sighand struct was RCU freed.

Sigh...