Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:49:06 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] cputimers/proc: do_task_stat()->task_times() can race with getrusage() |
| |
On 03/26, Balbir Singh wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2010-03-24 21:45:50]: > > > do_task_stat()->task_times() can race with getrusage(), they both can > > try to update task->prev_Xtime at the same time. > > > > Remove this bit of d180c5bc "sched: Introduce task_times() to replace > > task_{u,s}time()". > > One of the reasons for adding this accuracy was to avoid sampling > based noise and errors that occur with utime and stime. > > As long as there is no preemption during the assignment, I think we > should be OK.
I don't think preemp_disable() can help. Probably we can use task_lock().
As for do_task_stat()->thread_group_times(), I think we can make it rc-safe without breaking /bin/top.
1. add spin_lock_irqsave(&sig->cputimer.lock) around sig->prev_Xtime = max(...)
2. Add a couple of barriers into thread_group_cputime() and __exit_signal() so that without ->siglock we can never overestimate utime/stime if we race with exit.
If we underestimate these values, this should be fine:
- the error can't be "systematic", the next read from /prod/pid/stat will see the updated values
- the prev_Xtime logic in thread_group_times() ensures the reported time can never go back.
IOW: at worse, cat /proc/pid/stat can miss the time which the exited thread spent on CPU after the previous read of /proc/pid/stat. This looks absolutely harmless, the next read will see this time.
Probably we can even detect this case if we look at sig->nr_threads and retry.
I'll try to make patches unless someone has a better idea.
I just can't accept the fact that we are doing while_each_thread() under ->siglock here ;)
Oleg.
| |