[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Optimize sys_times for a single thread process
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Well, hrm, maybe. If this task has one sibling thread, and that thread is
> in the process of exitting then (current == next_thread(current)) may
> become true before that sibling thread has had a chance to dump its process
> accounting info into the signal structure.

The task is only "unhashed" after the counters have been added in
__exit_signal. See release_task in kernel/exit.c

> If that dumping happens prior to the __detach_pid() call then things are
> probably OK (modulo memory ordering issues). Otherwise there's a little
> window where the accounting will go wrong.

__exit_signal takes various locks that will insure the proper sequencing.

> Have you audited that code to ensure that the desired sequencing occurs in
> all cases and that the appropriate barriers are in place?

AFAIK release task is always called for task removal.

> It all looks a bit fast-and-loose. If there are significant performance
> benefits and these issues are loudly commented (they aren't at present)
> then maybe-OK, I guess.

There are significant performance benefits in particular for one standard
NUMA benchmark that keeps calling sys_times over and over. I believe other
programs may exhibit the same brain dead behavior.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-18 02:18    [W:0.170 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site