From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sanjay Rao <srao@redhat.com>, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:22:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53EA6992.8060608@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140812191218.GA15210@redhat.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2014 03:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> Back in 2009, Spencer Candland pointed out there is a race with
>> do_sys_times, where multiple threads calling do_sys_times can
>> sometimes get decreasing results.
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/522
>>
>> As a result of that discussion, some of the code in do_sys_times
>> was moved under a spinlock.
>>
>> However, that does not seem to actually make the race go away on
>> larger systems. One obvious remaining race is that after one
>> thread is about to return from do_sys_times, it is preempted by
>> another thread, which also runs do_sys_times, and stores a larger
>> value in the shared variable than what the first thread got.
>>
>> This race is on the kernel/userspace boundary, and not fixable
>> with spinlocks.
>
> Not sure I understand...
>
> Afaics, the problem is that a single thread can observe the
> decreasing (say) sum_exec_runtime if it calls do_sys_times() twice
> without the lock.
>
> This is because it can account the exiting sub-thread twice if it
> races with __exit_signal() which increments sig->sum_sched_runtime,
> but this exiting thread can still be visible to
> thread_group_cputime().
>
> IOW, it is not actually about decreasing, the problem is that the
> lockless thread_group_cputime() can return the wrong result, and
> the next ys_times() can show the right value.
Hmmm, that is not what the test case does.
The test case simply calls times() once in each thread, and saves
the value in a global variable for the next thread to use.
Does the seq_lock in task_cputime() prevent the problem you are
describing, or does the exit/zombie reaping code need to block the
seq_lock while it moves the stats from the zombie to the group?
- --
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT6mmSAAoJEM553pKExN6D+EkH/2BexZ8XfKpHAKfkidIhPrOy
nr5q8WhKU1mJmdEULNx6NQxAjRnpORTOfDElwRT1gzXqOyXrTxXZ207/anezhstU
kyu5wRNBz/pilXPDzVsiF+DqTxoBnVOIc0eltQ00jmUden08eVEfEY5mjevCJalz
2AbWFa8QQZgtGSCZB1UPaUF6NHTu/Z35u9UTEIkLirLCqfIYPz325Wdfs+W+fggS
8vEgHhO50BrIAm9HCO/vgY8SCAU/0Pml73ABV3+4sB7dnYVgDkYXzS0iMimuAcZ/
qL0NhRrKH4sRxGQXBlQv87GgMpR9Tr4RVFK6eH9xwjVwthYXnYeDTbYryjpmdco=
=haSd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-12 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-12 18:25 [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock Rik van Riel
2014-08-12 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-12 19:22 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2014-08-12 22:27 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 17:35 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 18:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 18:25 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 18:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 18:57 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 21:03 ` [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 0:43 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 1:57 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 13:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 2:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-15 14:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 22:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 13:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-08-14 13:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 17:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 18:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 5:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-15 6:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-15 9:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-15 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-15 16:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 16:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 17:25 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-15 18:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 14:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 15:37 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 16:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 17:36 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 18:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 19:03 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-14 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-15 2:14 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-15 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-13 21:03 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:40 ` [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 17:50 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 6:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-08-13 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 13:24 ` Rik van Riel
2014-08-13 13:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 14:09 ` Mike Galbraith
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=53EA6992.8060608@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fmayhar@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=srao@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