From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@google.com>,
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 06:28:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+a1RRx-NK1H-iyuqwEs1kHfUsQBHRU7OsK7zHPmjVHSzw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240404134357.GA7153@redhat.com>
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 15:45, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I am totally confused, but.
>
> On 04/04, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 17:43, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why distribution_thread() can't simply exit if got_signal != 0 ?
> > > >
> > > > See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128195641.GA14906@redhat.com/
> > >
> > > Indeed. It's too obvious :)
> >
> > This test models the intended use-case that was the motivation for the change:
> > We want to sample execution of a running multi-threaded program, it
> > has multiple active threads (that don't exit), since all threads are
> > running and consuming CPU,
>
> Yes,
>
> > they all should get a signal eventually.
>
> Well, yes and no.
>
> No, in a sense that the motivation was not to ensure that all threads
> get a signal, the motivation was to ensure that cpu_timer_fire() paths
> will use the current task as the default target for signal_wake_up/etc.
> This is just optimization.
>
> But yes, all should get a signal eventually. And this will happen with
> or without the commit bcb7ee79029dca ("posix-timers: Prefer delivery of
> signals to the current thread"). Any thread can dequeue a shared signal,
> say, on return from interrupt.
>
> Just without that commit this "eventually" means A_LOT_OF_TIME statistically.
I agree that any thread can pick the signal, but this A_LOT_OF_TIME
makes it impossible for the test to reliably repeatedly pass w/o the
change in any reasonable testing system.
With the change the test was finishing/passing for me immediately all the time.
Again, if the test causes practical problems (flaky), then I don't
mind relaxing it (flaky tests suck). I was just against giving up on
testing proactively just in case.
> > If threads will exit once they get a signal,
>
> just in case, the main thread should not exit ...
>
> > then the test will pass
> > even if signal delivery is biased towards a single running thread all
> > the time (the previous kernel impl).
>
> See above.
>
> But yes, I agree, if thread exits once it get a signal, then A_LOT_OF_TIME
> will be significantly decreased. But again, this is just statistical issue,
> I do not see how can we test the commit bcb7ee79029dca reliably.
>
> OTOH. If the threads do not exit after they get signal, then _in theory_
> nothing can guarantee that this test-case will ever complete even with
> that commit. It is possible that one of the threads will "never" have a
> chance to run cpu_timer_fire().
>
> In short, I leave this to you and Thomas. I have no idea how to write a
> "good" test for that commit.
>
> Well... perhaps the main thread should just sleep in pause(), and
> distribution_handler() should check that gettid() != getpid() ?
> Something like this maybe... We need to ensure that the main thread
> enters pause before timer_settime().
>
> Oleg.
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-05 4:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-16 12:30 [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Marco Elver
2023-03-16 12:30 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across threads Marco Elver
2024-04-06 20:53 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2024-04-06 21:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-06 21:32 ` Muhammad Usama Anjum
2023-03-30 10:19 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Marco Elver
2023-04-06 14:12 ` Marco Elver
2023-04-06 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-04-06 20:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-01 20:17 ` John Stultz
2024-04-02 9:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-02 14:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-02 17:23 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 12:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 15:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-03 15:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 18:16 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 19:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-03 19:35 ` John Stultz
2024-04-03 22:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-04 14:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-04 18:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-06 15:09 ` [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement check_timer_distribution() Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-06 15:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-06 22:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-08 8:30 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-08 10:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-08 10:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-08 18:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-08 22:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-09 11:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-09 11:45 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-09 12:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-09 13:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-10 22:21 ` John Stultz
2024-04-10 22:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-10 22:33 ` John Stultz
2024-04-11 12:41 ` [PATCH] " Mark Brown
2024-04-11 15:33 ` John Stultz
2024-04-11 12:44 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-11 14:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-11 15:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-11 16:03 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-12 12:35 ` [PATCH] selftests: fix build failure with NOLIBC Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-14 7:42 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-04 8:55 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread Dmitry Vyukov
2024-04-04 13:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-04 15:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-04-04 15:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-04-05 4:28 ` Dmitry Vyukov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACT4Y+a1RRx-NK1H-iyuqwEs1kHfUsQBHRU7OsK7zHPmjVHSzw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=cmllamas@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=edliaw@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).