From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757558Ab1IADJ5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:09:57 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:43293 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757503Ab1IADJ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:09:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20110831.230718.2029810906806382170.davem@davemloft.net> To: peterz@infradead.org CC: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: process time < thread time? From: David Miller X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (shards.monkeyblade.net [198.137.202.13]); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org If someone who understands our thread/process time implementation can look into this, I'd appreciate it. Attached below is a watered-down version of rt/tst-cpuclock2.c from GLIBC. Just build it with "gcc -o test test.c -lpthread -lrt" or similar. Run it several times, and you will see cases where the main thread will measure a process clock difference before and after the nanosleep which is smaller than the cpu-burner thread's individual thread clock difference. This doesn't make any sense since the cpu-burner thread is part of the top-level process's thread group. I've reproduced this on both x86-64 and sparc64 (using both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries). For example: [davem@boricha build-x86_64-linux]$ ./test process: before(0.001221967) after(0.498624371) diff(497402404) thread: before(0.000081692) after(0.498316431) diff(498234739) self: before(0.001223521) after(0.001240219) diff(16698) [davem@boricha build-x86_64-linux]$ The diff of 'process' should always be >= the diff of 'thread'. I make sure to wrap the 'thread' clock measurements the most tightly around the nanosleep() call, and that the 'process' clock measurements are the outer-most ones. I suspect this might be some kind of artifact of how the partial runqueue ->clock and ->clock_task updates work? Maybe some weird interaction with ->skip_clock_update? Or is this some known issue? Thanks! -------------------- #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include static pthread_barrier_t barrier; static void *chew_cpu(void *arg) { pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier); while (1) __asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory"); return NULL; } int main(void) { clockid_t process_clock, my_thread_clock, th_clock; struct timespec process_before, process_after; struct timespec me_before, me_after; struct timespec th_before, th_after; struct timespec sleeptime; unsigned long diff; pthread_t th; int err; err = clock_getcpuclockid(0, &process_clock); if (err) return 1; err = pthread_getcpuclockid(pthread_self(), &my_thread_clock); if (err) return 1; pthread_barrier_init(&barrier, NULL, 2); err = pthread_create(&th, NULL, chew_cpu, NULL); if (err) return 1; err = pthread_getcpuclockid(th, &th_clock); if (err) return 1; pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier); err = clock_gettime(process_clock, &process_before); if (err) return 1; err = clock_gettime(my_thread_clock, &me_before); if (err) return 1; err = clock_gettime(th_clock, &th_before); if (err) return 1; sleeptime.tv_sec = 0; sleeptime.tv_nsec = 500000000; nanosleep(&sleeptime, NULL); err = clock_gettime(th_clock, &th_after); if (err) return 1; err = clock_gettime(my_thread_clock, &me_after); if (err) return 1; err = clock_gettime(process_clock, &process_after); if (err) return 1; diff = process_after.tv_nsec - process_before.tv_nsec; printf("process: before(%lu.%.9lu) after(%lu.%.9lu) diff(%lu)\n", process_before.tv_sec, process_before.tv_nsec, process_after.tv_sec, process_after.tv_nsec, diff); diff = th_after.tv_nsec - th_before.tv_nsec; printf("thread: before(%lu.%.9lu) after(%lu.%.9lu) diff(%lu)\n", th_before.tv_sec, th_before.tv_nsec, th_after.tv_sec, th_after.tv_nsec, diff); diff = me_after.tv_nsec - me_before.tv_nsec; printf("self: before(%lu.%.9lu) after(%lu.%.9lu) diff(%lu)\n", me_before.tv_sec, me_before.tv_nsec, me_after.tv_sec, me_after.tv_nsec, diff); return 0; }