mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@in.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	John stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] taskstats: Introduce cdata_acct for complete cumulative accounting
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:40:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290678022.1941.29.camel@holzheu-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101123165951.GA5938@redhat.com>

Hello Oleg,

On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 17:59 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: 
> On 11/19, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > TODO:
> > -----
> > With this patch we take the siglock twice. First for the dead task
> > and second for the parent of the dead task. This give the following
> > lockdep warning (probably a lockdep annotation is needed here):
> 
> And we already discussed this ;) We do not need 2 siglock's, only
> parent's. Just move the callsite in __exit_signal() down, under
> another (lockless) group_dead check.
> 
> Or I missed something?

The problem with moving this down to the second group_dead check is that
after __unhash_process() is called, pid_alive(tsk) which is checked in
thread_group_cputime() returns false. Therefore we always get zero CPU
times.

So I probably have to introduce a second group_dead check at the
beginning of __exit_signal():

@@ -150,6 +153,9 @@ static void __exit_signal(struct task_st
        struct sighand_struct *sighand;
        struct tty_struct *uninitialized_var(tty);

+       if (group_dead)
+               __account_cdata(...);
+
        sighand = rcu_dereference_check(tsk->sighand,
                                        rcu_read_lock_held() ||
                                        
> We can do this before taking ->siglock. Not that I think this really
> matters, but otherwise this looks a bit confusing imho, as if we need
> parent's ->siglock to pin something.

ok

> 
> 
> And thanks for splitting these changes. It was much, much easier to
> read now.

My personal feeling is that probably the only acceptable thing would be
to make the new behavior configurable with a sysctl and define the
default as it currently is (POSIX compliant).

This would only introduce two additional checks in __exit_signal() and
wait_task_zombie() and would not add any new fields to the
signal_struct.

Michael


  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-25  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-19 20:11 [patch 0/4] taskstats: Improve cumulative time accounting Michael Holzheu
2010-11-19 20:11 ` [patch 1/4] taskstats: Introduce "struct cdata" Michael Holzheu
2010-11-25 12:29   ` Balbir Singh
2010-11-25 14:23   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-25 16:38     ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-19 20:11 ` [patch 2/4] taskstats: Introduce __account_cdata() function Michael Holzheu
2010-11-19 20:11 ` [patch 3/4] taskstats: Introduce cdata_acct for complete cumulative accounting Michael Holzheu
2010-11-23 16:59   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-25  9:40     ` Michael Holzheu [this message]
2010-11-25 13:21       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-25 17:45         ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-19 20:11 ` [patch 4/4] taskstats: Export "cdata_acct" with taskstats Michael Holzheu
2010-11-25 13:26   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-25 17:21     ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-29 16:43       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-29 16:58         ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-29 18:08           ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-25 16:57   ` Balbir Singh
2010-11-19 20:19 ` [patch 0/4] taskstats: Improve cumulative time accounting Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-20 15:17   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-11-22  7:21     ` Balbir Singh
2010-11-22 11:03   ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-22 12:47     ` Michael Holzheu
2010-11-22 18:11       ` Valdis.Kletnieks

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=1290678022.1941.29.camel@holzheu-laptop \
    --to=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nagar1234@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®