From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: process time < thread time?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:07:18 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110831.230718.2029810906806382170.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
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 <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <pthread.h>
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;
}
next reply other threads:[~2011-09-01 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-01 3:07 David Miller [this message]
2011-09-01 9:56 ` process time < thread time? Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-01 10:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-01 10:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-01 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-01 14:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-01 14:56 ` David Miller
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=20110831.230718.2029810906806382170.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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).