On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:47:43AM -0400, kosaki.motoh...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> Currently glibc rt/tst-cpuclock2 test(*) sporadically fails because
> scheduler delta can be accounted twice from thread_group_cputimer()
> and account_group_exec_runtime().
> 
> Finally, clock_nanosleep() wakes up before an argument. This is posix
> violation. This issue was introduced by commit d670ec1317 (posix-cpu-timers:
> Cure SMP wobbles).
> 
> (*) 
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=rt/tst-cpuclock2.c;h=6752721717f959e89c0d692b3f1ee082d507eec2;hb=HEAD
> 
> Cc: Olivier Langlois <oliv...@trillion01.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com>
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> index 8fd709c..e56be4c 100644
> --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int cpu_clock_sample(const clockid_t which_clock, 
> struct task_struct *p,
>               cpu->cpu = virt_ticks(p);
>               break;
>       case CPUCLOCK_SCHED:
> -             cpu->sched = task_sched_runtime(p);
> +             cpu->sched = task_sched_runtime(p, true);
>               break;
>       }
>       return 0;
> @@ -250,8 +250,13 @@ void thread_group_cputimer(struct task_struct *tsk, 
> struct task_cputime *times)
>                * values through the TIMER_ABSTIME flag, therefore we have
>                * to synchronize the timer to the clock every time we start
>                * it.
> +              *
> +              * Do not add the current delta, because
> +              * account_group_exec_runtime() will also this delta and we
> +              * wouldn't want to double account time and get ahead of
> +              * ourselves.
>                */
> -             thread_group_cputime(tsk, &sum);
> +             thread_group_cputime(tsk, false, &sum);
>               raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cputimer->lock, flags);

I wonder if we should move thread_group_cputime() inside this lock.
Otherwise we can miss some updates in-between.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to