On 11/19, Michael Holzheu wrote:
quoted text
>
> Currently the cumulative time accounting in Linux is not complete.
> Due to POSIX POSIX.1-2001, the CPU time of processes is not accounted
> to the cumulative time of the parents, if the parents ignore SIGCHLD
> or have set SA_NOCLDWAIT. This behaviour has the major drawback that
> it is not possible to calculate all consumed CPU time of a system by
> looking at the current tasks. CPU time can be lost.
>
> This patch adds a new set of cumulative time counters. We then have two
> cumulative counter sets:
>
> * cdata_wait: Traditional cumulative time used e.g. by getrusage.
> * cdata_acct: Cumulative time that also includes dead processes with
>               parents that ignore SIGCHLD or have set SA_NOCLDWAIT.
>               cdata_acct will be exported by taskstats.

Looks correct at first glance. A couple of nits below.

quoted text
> TODO:
> -----
> With this patch we take the siglock twice. First for the dead task
> and second for the parent of the dead task. This give the following
> lockdep warning (probably a lockdep annotation is needed here):

And we already discussed this ;) We do not need 2 siglock's, only
parent's. Just move the callsite in __exit_signal() down, under
another (lockless) group_dead check.

Or I missed something?

quoted text
> @@ -595,6 +595,8 @@ struct signal_struct {
>  	 */
>  	struct cdata cdata_wait;
>  	struct cdata cdata_threads;
> +	struct cdata cdata_acct;
> +	struct task_io_accounting ioac_acct;
>  	struct task_io_accounting ioac;

Given that task_io_accounting is Linux specific, perhaps we can use
signal->ioac in both cases?

Yes, this is a user-visible change anyway. But, at least we can
forget about POSIX.

quoted text
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&p->real_parent->sighand->siglock, flags);
> +	if (wait) {
> +		pcd = &p->real_parent->signal->cdata_wait;
> +		tcd = &p->signal->cdata_threads;
> +		cd = &p->signal->cdata_wait;
> +	} else {
> +		pcd = &p->real_parent->signal->cdata_acct;
> +		tcd = &p->signal->cdata_threads;
> +		cd = &p->signal->cdata_acct;
> +	}

We can do this before taking ->siglock. Not that I think this really
matters, but otherwise this looks a bit confusing imho, as if we need
parent's ->siglock to pin something.


And thanks for splitting these changes. It was much, much easier to
read now.

Oleg.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/