On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:59:02PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the delay..
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:03:35PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I can't undestand. Could you please be more verbose ?
> >
> > Last thread (RUSAGE_SELF) Exiting thread
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > utime = cputime_add(utime, p->signal->utime); /* use cached load above */
> > stime = cputime_add(stime, p->signal->stime); /* load from memory */
>
> Thanks for your explanation, now I see what you mean.
>
> But don't we already discussed this issue? I think that RUSAGE_SELF
> case always not 100% accurate, so it is Ok to ignore this race.
It is not 100% accurate as in we lose time accounting for one clock tick
for the task_struct->utime, stime counters. But
task_struct->signal->utime,stime collect rusage times of an exiting thread,
so we would be introducing large inaccuracies if we don't use rmb here.
Take the case when an exiting thread has a large utime stime value, and
rusage reports utime before thread exit and stime after thread exit... the
result would look wierd.
So IMHO, while inaccuracies in task_struct->xxx time can be tolerated, it
might not be such a good idea to for task_struct->signal->xxx counters.
Thanks,
Kiran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
