Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757905AbZKJT2k (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757859AbZKJT2j (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23463 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757847AbZKJT2i (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:23:27 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Hidetoshi Seto , Spencer Candland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: utime/stime decreasing on thread exit Message-ID: <20091110192327.GA16325@redhat.com> References: <4AF0C97F.7000603@bluehost.com> <4AF123F5.50407@jp.fujitsu.com> <4AF26176.4080307@jp.fujitsu.com> <1257778154.4108.341.camel@laptop> <20091109172020.GA7751@redhat.com> <1257787903.4108.345.camel@laptop> <20091109192355.GA13724@redhat.com> <20091110104452.GB2391@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20091110174008.GA12909@redhat.com> <20091110182415.GB6066@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091110182415.GB6066@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1773 Lines: 53 On 11/10, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:40:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > Or stay with task_cputime_expired() but only if cputimer is currently running. > > > > Oh. I forgot this code completely, can't comment. > > > > Can't we ensure that fastpath_timer_check() never do while_each_thread() ? > > Removing possibility to call while_each_tread() from fastpath_timer_check() > was exactly my intension here, perhaps I was not clear. Yes, yes, I understand. I meant, perhaps we can ensure this shouldn't happen "by design", instead of checking ->running in fastpath_timer_check(). > > IOW, if sig->cputime_expires != 0 then ->running must be true. > > At least, shouldn't stop_process_timers() clear sig->cputime_expires ? > > I'm going to think about that. However as far seems, checking ->running > explicitly and goto slow patch when is not true is safer solution. Yes, agreed. Still. check_process_timers() updates sig->cputime_expires at the end, but it never clears it. For example, if (sched_expires != 0 && (sig->cputime_expires.sched_exp == 0 || sig->cputime_expires.sched_exp > sched_expires)) sig->cputime_expires.sched_exp = sched_expires; Why? Now suppose that (say) sig->cputime_expires.sched_exp != 0, there are no cpu timers, ->running == F. In this case fastpath_timer_check() always returns T and triggers the slow path which does nothing, not good. But yes, I agree, probably we should start with the simple/safe change as you suggested. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/