On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:07 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:14 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > (disregard patch of same name from that enterprise weenie;)
> > >
> > > If a task has been dequeued, it has been accounted. Do not project
> > > cycles that may or may not ever be accounted to a dequeued task, as
> > > that may make clock_gettime() both inaccurate and non-monotonic.
> > >
> > > Protect update_rq_clock() from slight TSC skew while at it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
> > > + if (delta < 0)
> > > + return;
> > > rq->clock += delta;
> > > update_rq_clock_task(rq, delta);
> > > }
> >
> > Have you actually observed this? If TSC is stable this should not
> > happen, if TSC is not stable we should be using kernel/sched/clock.c
> > which should also avoid this, because while sched_clock_cpu(x) -
> > sched_clock_cpu(y) < 0 is possible, sched_clock_cpu(x) -
> > sched_clock_cpu(x) should always be >= 0.
> >
> > I suppose it can happen when the TSC gets screwed and we haven't
> > switched to the slow path yet.
>
> Seen, no.
s/no/yes.. 8 socket 64 core box:
vogelweide:/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/:[0]# cat trace
# tracer: nop
#
# entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 7/7 #P:64
#
# _-------=> irqs-off
# / _------=> need-resched
# |/ _-----=> need-resched_lazy
# ||/ _----=> hardirq/softirq
# |||/ _---=> preempt-depth
# ||||/ _--=> preempt-lazy-depth
# ||||| / _-=> migrate-disable
# |||||| / delay
# TASK-PID CPU# |||||| TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
# | | | |||||| | |
modprobe-1656 [051] d...313 12.711729: update_rq_clock: CPU25
negative delta -38
tbench_srv-8091 [054] d...314 129.845174: update_rq_clock: CPU30
negative delta -12
tbench_srv-8048 [062] d...314 129.861227: update_rq_clock: CPU34
negative delta -74
tbench_srv-8054 [046] d...316 132.713941: update_rq_clock: CPU58
negative delta -187
tbench_srv-8077 [047] d...316 133.779680: update_rq_clock: CPU0
negative delta -54
tbench_srv-8048 [058] d...316 137.490513: update_rq_clock: CPU19
negative delta -19
tbench-8087 [004] d...313 139.001686: update_rq_clock: CPU5
negative delta -176
> Damn, I had a reason for leaving that, but seems no now.
As expected, testing verified that my imagination works great :)
sched: Fix clock_gettime(CLOCK_[PROCESS/THREAD]_CPUTIME_ID) monotonicity
If a task has been dequeued, it has been accounted. Do not project
cycles that may or may not ever be accounted to a dequeued task, as
that may make clock_gettime() both inaccurate and non-monotonic.
Protect update_rq_clock() from slight TSC skew while at it.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
return;
delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
+ if (delta < 0)
+ return;
rq->clock += delta;
update_rq_clock_task(rq, delta);
}
@@ -2533,7 +2535,12 @@ static u64 do_task_delta_exec(struct tas
{
u64 ns = 0;
- if (task_current(rq, p)) {
+ /*
+ * Must be ->curr _and_ ->on_rq. If dequeued, we would
+ * project cycles that may never be accounted to this
+ * thread, breaking clock_gettime().
+ */
+ if (task_current(rq, p) && p->on_rq) {
update_rq_clock(rq);
ns = rq_clock_task(rq) - p->se.exec_start;
if ((s64)ns < 0)
@@ -2576,8 +2583,10 @@ unsigned long long task_sched_runtime(st
* If we race with it leaving cpu, we'll take a lock. So we're correct.
* If we race with it entering cpu, unaccounted time is 0. This is
* indistinguishable from the read occurring a few cycles earlier.
+ * If we see ->on_cpu without ->on_rq, the task is leaving, and has
+ * been accounted, so we're correct here as well.
*/
- if (!p->on_cpu)
+ if (!p->on_cpu || !p->on_rq)
return p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
#endif
--
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/
