[PATCH 2/3] revert "Optimize sys_times for a single thread process"

[PATCH 2/3] revert "Optimize sys_times for a single thread process"

[Oleg Nesterov]

This patch reverts 'CONFIG_SMP && thread_group_empty()'
optimization in sys_times(). The reason is that the next
patch breaks memory ordering which is needed for that
optimization.

tasklist_lock in sys_times() will be eliminated completely
by further patch.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>

--- 2.6.16-rc3/kernel/exit.c~2_REVERT	2006-02-23 00:32:46.000000000 +0300
+++ 2.6.16-rc3/kernel/exit.c	2006-02-23 00:54:28.000000000 +0300
@@ -137,11 +137,7 @@ repeat:
 	ptrace_unlink(p);
 	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&p->ptrace_list) || !list_empty(&p->ptrace_children));
 	__exit_signal(p);
-	/*
-	 * Note that the fastpath in sys_times depends on __exit_signal having
-	 * updated the counters before a task is removed from the tasklist of
-	 * the process by __unhash_process.
-	 */
+
 	__unhash_process(p);
 
 	/*
--- 2.6.16-rc3/kernel/sys.c~2_REVERT	2006-02-13 21:47:19.000000000 +0300
+++ 2.6.16-rc3/kernel/sys.c	2006-02-23 00:55:56.000000000 +0300
@@ -1009,69 +1009,35 @@ asmlinkage long sys_times(struct tms __u
 	 */
 	if (tbuf) {
 		struct tms tmp;
+		struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+		struct task_struct *t;
 		cputime_t utime, stime, cutime, cstime;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-		if (thread_group_empty(current)) {
-			/*
-			 * Single thread case without the use of any locks.
-			 *
-			 * We may race with release_task if two threads are
-			 * executing. However, release task first adds up the
-			 * counters (__exit_signal) before  removing the task
-			 * from the process tasklist (__unhash_process).
-			 * __exit_signal also acquires and releases the
-			 * siglock which results in the proper memory ordering
-			 * so that the list modifications are always visible
-			 * after the counters have been updated.
-			 *
-			 * If the counters have been updated by the second thread
-			 * but the thread has not yet been removed from the list
-			 * then the other branch will be executing which will
-			 * block on tasklist_lock until the exit handling of the
-			 * other task is finished.
-			 *
-			 * This also implies that the sighand->siglock cannot
-			 * be held by another processor. So we can also
-			 * skip acquiring that lock.
-			 */
-			utime = cputime_add(current->signal->utime, current->utime);
-			stime = cputime_add(current->signal->utime, current->stime);
-			cutime = current->signal->cutime;
-			cstime = current->signal->cstime;
-		} else
-#endif
-		{
-
-			/* Process with multiple threads */
-			struct task_struct *tsk = current;
-			struct task_struct *t;
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+		utime = tsk->signal->utime;
+		stime = tsk->signal->stime;
+		t = tsk;
+		do {
+			utime = cputime_add(utime, t->utime);
+			stime = cputime_add(stime, t->stime);
+			t = next_thread(t);
+		} while (t != tsk);
 
-			read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
-			utime = tsk->signal->utime;
-			stime = tsk->signal->stime;
-			t = tsk;
-			do {
-				utime = cputime_add(utime, t->utime);
-				stime = cputime_add(stime, t->stime);
-				t = next_thread(t);
-			} while (t != tsk);
+		/*
+		 * While we have tasklist_lock read-locked, no dying thread
+		 * can be updating current->signal->[us]time.  Instead,
+		 * we got their counts included in the live thread loop.
+		 * However, another thread can come in right now and
+		 * do a wait call that updates current->signal->c[us]time.
+		 * To make sure we always see that pair updated atomically,
+		 * we take the siglock around fetching them.
+		 */
+		spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
+		cutime = tsk->signal->cutime;
+		cstime = tsk->signal->cstime;
+		spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
-			/*
-			 * While we have tasklist_lock read-locked, no dying thread
-			 * can be updating current->signal->[us]time.  Instead,
-			 * we got their counts included in the live thread loop.
-			 * However, another thread can come in right now and
-			 * do a wait call that updates current->signal->c[us]time.
-			 * To make sure we always see that pair updated atomically,
-			 * we take the siglock around fetching them.
-			 */
-			spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
-			cutime = tsk->signal->cutime;
-			cstime = tsk->signal->cstime;
-			spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
-			read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-		}
 		tmp.tms_utime = cputime_to_clock_t(utime);
 		tmp.tms_stime = cputime_to_clock_t(stime);
 		tmp.tms_cutime = cputime_to_clock_t(cutime);

Re: [PATCH 2/3] revert "Optimize sys_times for a single thread process"

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> tasklist_lock in sys_times() will be eliminated completely
> by further patch.

Where is that patch? The patch would simply drop the locks?

Re: [PATCH 2/3] revert "Optimize sys_times for a single threadprocess"

[Oleg Nesterov]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > tasklist_lock in sys_times() will be eliminated completely
> > by further patch.
> 
> Where is that patch? The patch would simply drop the locks?

Just sent it: "[PATCH 1/6] sys_times: don't take tasklist_lock"

It only drops tasklist_lock, sighand->siglock is still needed,
of course.

Oleg.