Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> Back in 2009, Spencer Candland pointed out there is a race with
> do_sys_times, where multiple threads calling do_sys_times can
> sometimes get decreasing results.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/522
>
> As a result of that discussion, some of the code in do_sys_times
> was moved under a spinlock.
>
> However, that does not seem to actually make the race go away on
> larger systems. One obvious remaining race is that after one thread
> is about to return from do_sys_times, it is preempted by another
> thread, which also runs do_sys_times, and stores a larger value in
> the shared variable than what the first thread got.
>
> This race is on the kernel/userspace boundary, and not fixable
> with spinlocks.

Not sure I understand...

Afaics, the problem is that a single thread can observe the decreasing
(say) sum_exec_runtime if it calls do_sys_times() twice without the lock.

This is because it can account the exiting sub-thread twice if it races
with __exit_signal() which increments sig->sum_sched_runtime, but this
exiting thread can still be visible to thread_group_cputime().

IOW, it is not actually about decreasing, the problem is that the lockless
thread_group_cputime() can return the wrong result, and the next ys_times()
can show the right value.

> Back in 2009, in changeset 2b5fe6de5 Oleg Nesterov already found
> that it should be safe to remove the spinlock.

Yes, it is safe but only in a sense that for_each_thread() is fine lockless.
So this change was reverted.

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/