Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK, lets forget about alternative approach for now. We can reconsider
> it later. At least I have to admit that seqlock is more straighforward.

Yes.

But just for record, the "lockless" version doesn't look that bad to me,

	void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
	{
		struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
		bool lockless, is_dead;
		struct task_struct *t;
		unsigned long flags;
		u64 exec;

		lockless = true;
		is_dead = !lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
	 retry:
		times->utime = sig->utime;
		times->stime = sig->stime;
		times->sum_exec_runtime = exec = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
		if (is_dead)
			return;

		if (lockless)
			unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);

		rcu_read_lock();
		for_each_thread(tsk, t) {
			cputime_t utime, stime;
			task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime);
			times->utime += utime;
			times->stime += stime;
			times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
		}
		rcu_read_unlock();

		if (lockless) {
			lockless = false;
			is_dead = !lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
			if (is_dead || exec != sig->sum_sched_runtime)
				goto retry;
		}
		unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
	}

The obvious problem is that we should shift lock_task_sighand() from the
callers to thread_group_cputime() first, or add thread_group_cputime_lockless()
and change the current users one by one.

And of course, stats_lock is more generic.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/