On 08/15, r...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -605,9 +605,12 @@ static void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr,
> * If the tick based count grows faster than the scheduler one,
> * the result of the scaling may go backward.
> * Let's enforce monotonicity.
> + * Atomic exchange protects against concurrent cputime_adjust.
> */
> - prev->stime = max(prev->stime, stime);
> - prev->utime = max(prev->utime, utime);
> + while (stime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->stime)))
> + cmpxchg(&prev->stime, rtime, stime);
> + while (utime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->utime)))
> + cmpxchg(&prev->utime, rtime, utime);
>
> out:
> *ut = prev->utime;
I am still not sure about this change. At least I think it needs some
discussion.
Let me repeat, afaics this can lead to inconsistent results. Just
suppose that the caller of thread_group_cputime_adjusted() gets a long
preemption between thread_group_cputime() and cputime_adjust(), and
the numbers in signal->prev_cputime grow significantly when this task
resumes. If cputime_adjust() sees both prev->stime and prev->utime
updated everything is fine. But we can race with cputime_adjust() on
another CPU and miss, say, the change in ->utime.
IOW. To simplify, suppose that thread_group_cputime(T) fills task_cputime
with zeros. Then the caller X is preempted.
Another task does thread_group_cputime(T) and this time task_cputime is
{ .utime = A_LOT_U, .stime = A_LOT_S }. This task calls cputime_adjust()
and sets prev->stime = A_LOT_S.
X resumes, calls cputime_adjust(), and returns { 0, A_LOT_S }.
If you think that we do not care, probably I won't argue. But at least
this should be documented/discussed. And if we can tolerate this, then we
can probably simply remove the scale_stime recalculation and change it to
just do
static void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr,
struct cputime *prev,
cputime_t *ut, cputime_t *st)
{
cputime_t rtime, stime, utime;
/*
* Let's enforce monotonicity.
* Atomic exchange protects against concurrent cputime_adjust.
*/
while (stime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->stime)))
cmpxchg(&prev->stime, rtime, stime);
while (utime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->utime)))
cmpxchg(&prev->utime, rtime, utime);
*ut = prev->utime;
*st = prev->stime;
}
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
