Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:58:13 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock |
| |
On 08/14, Rik van Riel wrote: > > @@ -288,18 +288,31 @@ void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times) > struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal; > cputime_t utime, stime; > struct task_struct *t; > - > - times->utime = sig->utime; > - times->stime = sig->stime; > - times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime; > + unsigned int seq, nextseq; > > rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_thread(tsk, t) { > - task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime); > - times->utime += utime; > - times->stime += stime; > - times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t); > - } > + /* Attempt a lockless read on the first round. */ > + nextseq = 0; > + do { > + seq = nextseq; > + read_seqbegin_or_lock(&sig->stats_lock, &seq); > + times->utime = sig->utime; > + times->stime = sig->stime; > + times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime; > + > + for_each_thread(tsk, t) { > + task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime); > + times->utime += utime; > + times->stime += stime; > + times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t); > + } > + /* > + * If a writer is currently active, seq will be odd, and > + * read_seqbegin_or_lock will take the lock. > + */ > + nextseq = raw_read_seqcount(&sig->stats_lock.seqcount); > + } while (need_seqretry(&sig->stats_lock, seq)); > + done_seqretry(&sig->stats_lock, seq); > rcu_read_unlock(); > }
I still think this is not right. Let me quote my previous email,
> @@ -288,18 +288,31 @@ void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times) > struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal; > cputime_t utime, stime; > struct task_struct *t; > - > - times->utime = sig->utime; > - times->stime = sig->stime; > - times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime; > + unsigned int seq, nextseq; > > rcu_read_lock();
Almost cosmetic nit, but afaics this patch expands the rcu critical section for no reason. We only need rcu_read_lock/unlock around for_each_thread() below.
> + nextseq = 0; > + do { > + seq = nextseq; > + read_seqbegin_or_lock(&sig->stats_lock, &seq); > + times->utime = sig->utime; > + times->stime = sig->stime; > + times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime; > + > + for_each_thread(tsk, t) { > + task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime); > + times->utime += utime; > + times->stime += stime; > + times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t); > + } > + /* > + * If a writer is currently active, seq will be odd, and > + * read_seqbegin_or_lock will take the lock. > + */ > + nextseq = raw_read_seqcount(&sig->stats_lock.seqcount); > + } while (need_seqretry(&sig->stats_lock, seq)); > + done_seqretry(&sig->stats_lock, seq);
Hmm. It seems that read_seqbegin_or_lock() is not used correctly. I mean, this code still can livelock in theory. Just suppose that anoter CPU does write_seqlock/write_sequnlock right after read_seqbegin_or_lock(). In this case "seq & 1" will be never true and thus "or_lock" will never happen.
IMO, this should be fixed. Either we should guarantee the forward progress or we should not play with read_seqbegin_or_lock() at all. This code assumes that sooner or later "nextseq = raw_read_seqcount()" should return the odd counter, but in theory this can never happen.
And if we want to fix this we do not need 2 counters, just we need to set "seq = 1" manually after need_seqretry() == T. Say, like __dentry_path() does. (but unlike __dentry_path() we do not need to worry about rcu_read_unlock so the code will be simpler).
I am wondering if it makes sense to introduce
bool read_seqretry_or_lock(const seqlock_t *sl, int *seq) { if (*seq & 1) { read_sequnlock_excl(lock); return false; } if (!read_seqretry(lock, *seq)) return false; *seq = 1; return true; }
Or I missed your reply?
Oleg.
| |