mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@in.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	John stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	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 0/4] taskstats: Improve cumulative time accounting
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:51:29 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101122072129.GK12043@balbir.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101120151711.GA3019@redhat.com>

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2010-11-20 16:17:11]:

> On 11/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 21:11 +0100, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > > Due to POSIX POSIX.1-2001, the CPU time of processes is not accounted
> > > to the cumulative time of the parents, if the parents ignore SIGCHLD
> > > or have set SA_NOCLDWAIT. This behaviour has the major drawback that
> > > it is not possible to calculate all consumed CPU time of a system by
> > > looking at the current tasks. CPU time can be lost.
> > >
> > > To solve this problem, this patch set duplicates the cumulative accounting
> > > data in the signal_struct. In the second set (cdata_acct) the complete
> > > cumulative resource counters are stored. The new cumulative CPU time (utime
> > > and stime) is then exported via the taskstats interface.
> >
> > Maybe this has been treated earlier in the threads and I missed it, but
> > the obvious solution doesn't get mentioned:
> 
> IIRC, the first version did this.
> 
> And it was me who spoiled this approach. But! only because I wasn't sure
> this user-visible change is acceptable, and because there was some
> misunderstanding. See http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128552495203050&w=2
> 
> But,
> 
> > What would break if we
> 
> say, any test-case which does getrusage() after fork() with ignored
> SIGCHLD/SA_NOCLDWAIT?.
> 
> > violate this silly POSIX rule and account time of
> > childs regardless of SIGCHLD/SA_NOCLDWAIT?
> 
> +1.
> 
> Personally, I'd certainly prefer this way, because I don't care about
> POSIX at all ;)
> 
> 
> Still. Once again, this breaks the current rules, and we never do
> this without strong reason.
> 
> I think we should ask Roland. If he thinks this is OK, I'd certainly
> agree.
>

The Linux man page states

In Linux kernel versions before 2.6.9, if the disposition of SIGCHLD
is set to SIG_IGN then the resource usages of child processes are
automatically included in the value returned by RUSAGE_CHILDREN,
although POSIX.1-2001 explicitly prohibits this. This nonconformance
is rectified in Linux 2.6.9 and later. 



-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-22  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-19 20:11 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
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 [this message]
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=20101122072129.GK12043@balbir.in.ibm.com \
    --to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=holzheu@linux.vnet.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®