- 11 1月, 2006 1 次提交
-
-
由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于
add const arguments to the posix-timers.h API functions Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 07 1月, 2006 1 次提交
-
-
由 David S. Miller 提交于
I've spent the past 3 days digging into a glibc testsuite failure in current CVS, specifically libc/rt/tst-cputimer1.c The thr1 and thr2 timers fire too early in the second pass of this test. The second pass is noteworthy because it makes use of intervals, whereas the first pass does not. All throughout the posix-cpu-timers.c code, the calculation of the process sched_time sum is implemented roughly as: unsigned long long sum; sum = tsk->signal->sched_time; t = tsk; do { sum += t->sched_time; t = next_thread(t); } while (t != tsk); In fact this is the exact scheme used by check_process_timers(). In the case of check_process_timers(), current->sched_time has just been updated (via scheduler_tick(), which is invoked by update_process_times(), which subsequently invokes run_posix_cpu_timers()) So there is no special processing necessary wrt. that. In other contexts, we have to allot for the fact that tsk->sched_time might be a bit out of date if we are current. And the posix-cpu-timers.c code uses current_sched_time() to deal with that. Unfortunately it does so in an erroneous and inconsistent manner in one spot which is what results in the early timer firing. In cpu_clock_sample_group_locked(), it does this: cpu->sched = p->signal->sched_time; /* Add in each other live thread. */ while ((t = next_thread(t)) != p) { cpu->sched += t->sched_time; } if (p->tgid == current->tgid) { /* * We're sampling ourselves, so include the * cycles not yet banked. We still omit * other threads running on other CPUs, * so the total can always be behind as * much as max(nthreads-1,ncpus) * (NSEC_PER_SEC/HZ). */ cpu->sched += current_sched_time(current); } else { cpu->sched += p->sched_time; } The problem is the "p->tgid == current->tgid" test. If "p" is not current, and the tgids are the same, we will add the process t->sched_time twice into cpu->sched and omit "p"'s sched_time which is very very very wrong. posix-cpu-timers.c has a helper function, sched_ns(p) which takes care of this, so my fix is to use that here instead of this special tgid test. The fact that current can be one of the sub-threads of "p" points out that we could make things a little bit more accurate, perhaps by using sched_ns() on every thread we process in these loops. It also points out that we don't use the most accurate value for threads in the group actively running other cpus (and this is mentioned in the comment). But that is a future enhancement, and this fix here definitely makes sense. Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 29 11月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
fix 32bit overflow in timespec_to_sample() Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 07 11月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Andrew Morton 提交于
!unlikely(expr) hurts my brain. likely(!expr) is more straightforward. Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 31 10月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Roland McGrath 提交于
This change corrects an omission in posix_cpu_timer_schedule, so that it correctly propagates the overrun calculation to where it will get reported to the user. Signed-off-by: NRoland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 28 10月, 2005 2 次提交
-
-
由 Roland McGrath 提交于
This just makes sure that a thread's expiry times can't get reset after it clears them in do_exit. This is what allowed us to re-introduce the stricter BUG_ON() check in a362f463. Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
This reverts commit 3de463c7. Roland has another patch that allows us to leave the BUG_ON() in place by just making sure that the condition it tests for really is always true. That goes in next. Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 27 10月, 2005 2 次提交
-
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
There's a silly off-by-one error in the code that updates the expiration of posix CPU timers, causing them to not be properly updated when they hit exactly on their expiration time (which should be the normal case). This causes them to then fire immediately again, and only _then_ get properly updated. Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
Pointed out by Oleg Nesterov, who has been walking over the code forwards and backwards. Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 24 10月, 2005 5 次提交
-
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
This might be harmless, but looks like a race from code inspection (I was unable to trigger it). I must admit, I don't understand why we can't return TIMER_RETRY after 'spin_unlock(&p->sighand->siglock)' without doing bump_cpu_timer(), but this is what original code does. posix_cpu_timer_set: read_lock(&tasklist_lock); spin_lock(&p->sighand->siglock); list_del_init(&timer->it.cpu.entry); spin_unlock(&p->sighand->siglock); We are probaly deleting the timer from run_posix_cpu_timers's 'firing' local list_head while run_posix_cpu_timers() does list_for_each_safe. Various bad things can happen, for example we can just delete this timer so that list_for_each() will not notice it and run_posix_cpu_timers() will not reset '->firing' flag. In that case, .... if (timer->it.cpu.firing) { read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); timer->it.cpu.firing = -1; return TIMER_RETRY; } sys_timer_settime() goes to 'retry:', calls posix_cpu_timer_set() again, it returns TIMER_RETRY ... Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
No need to rebalance when task exited Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
do_exit() clears ->it_##clock##_expires, but nothing prevents another cpu to attach the timer to exiting process after that. After exit_notify() does 'write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock)' and before do_exit() calls 'schedule() local timer interrupt can find tsk->exit_state != 0. If that state was EXIT_DEAD (or another cpu does sys_wait4) interrupted task has ->signal == NULL. At this moment exiting task has no pending cpu timers, they were cleaned up in __exit_signal()->posix_cpu_timers_exit{,_group}(), so we can just return from irq. Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
1. cleanup_timers() sets timer->task = NULL under tasklist + ->sighand locks. That means that this code in posix_cpu_timer_del() and posix_cpu_timer_set() lock_timer(timer); if (timer->task == NULL) return; read_lock(tasklist); put_task_struct(timer->task) is racy. With this patch timer->task modified and accounted only under timer->it_lock. Sadly, this means that dead task_struct won't be freed until timer deleted or armed. 2. run_posix_cpu_timers() collects expired timers into local list under tasklist + ->sighand again. That means that posix_cpu_timer_del() should check timer->it.cpu.firing under these locks too. Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
Bursty timers aren't good for anybody, very much including latency for other programs when we trigger lots of timers in interrupt context. So set a random limit, after which we'll handle the rest on the next timer tick. Noted by Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 22 10月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
Revert commit e03d13e9, to be replaced by a much nicer fix from Roland.
-
- 20 10月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Roland McGrath 提交于
Oleg Nesterov reported an SMP deadlock. If there is a running timer tracking a different process's CPU time clock when the process owning the timer exits, we deadlock on tasklist_lock in posix_cpu_timer_del via exit_itimers. That code was using tasklist_lock to check for a race with __exit_signal being called on the timer-target task and clearing its ->signal. However, there is actually no such race. __exit_signal will have called posix_cpu_timers_exit and posix_cpu_timers_exit_group before it does that. Those will clear those k_itimer's association with the dying task, so posix_cpu_timer_del will return early and never reach the code in question. In addition, posix_cpu_timer_del called from exit_itimers during execve or directly from timer_delete in the process owning the timer can race with an exiting timer-target task to cause a double put on timer-target task struct. Make sure we always access cpu_timers lists with sighand lock held. Signed-off-by: NRoland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NChris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 18 10月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于
Make sure we release the task struct properly when releasing pending timers. release_task() does write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock), so it can't race with run_posix_cpu_timers() on any cpu. Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 17 4月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
-