Commit d670ec13 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Thomas Gleixner
Browse files

posix-cpu-timers: Cure SMP wobbles

David reported:

  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

  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.

  #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)
	  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;


	  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;

This is due to us using p->se.sum_exec_runtime in
thread_group_cputime() where we iterate the thread group and sum all
data. This does not take time since the last schedule operation (tick
or otherwise) into account. We can cure this by using
task_sched_runtime() at the cost of having to take locks.

This also means we can (and must) do away with
thread_group_sched_runtime() since the modified thread_group_cputime()
is now more accurate and would deadlock when called from

Aside of that it makes the function safe on 32 bit systems. The old
code added t->se.sum_exec_runtime unprotected. sum_exec_runtime is a
64bit value and could be changed on another cpu at the same time.
Reported-by: default avatarDavid Miller <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <>

Tested-by: default avatarDavid Miller <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <>
parent 6ebbe7a0
......@@ -1956,7 +1956,6 @@ static inline void disable_sched_clock_irqtime(void) {}
extern unsigned long long
task_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *task);
extern unsigned long long thread_group_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *task);
/* sched_exec is called by processes performing an exec */
......@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
do {
times->utime = cputime_add(times->utime, t->utime);
times->stime = cputime_add(times->stime, t->stime);
times->sum_exec_runtime += t->se.sum_exec_runtime;
times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
} while_each_thread(tsk, t);
......@@ -312,7 +312,8 @@ static int cpu_clock_sample_group(const clockid_t which_clock,
cpu->cpu = cputime.utime;
cpu->sched = thread_group_sched_runtime(p);
thread_group_cputime(p, &cputime);
cpu->sched = cputime.sum_exec_runtime;
return 0;
......@@ -3724,30 +3724,6 @@ unsigned long long task_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p)
return ns;
* Return sum_exec_runtime for the thread group.
* In case the task is currently running, return the sum plus current's
* pending runtime that have not been accounted yet.
* Note that the thread group might have other running tasks as well,
* so the return value not includes other pending runtime that other
* running tasks might have.
unsigned long long thread_group_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p)
struct task_cputime totals;
unsigned long flags;
struct rq *rq;
u64 ns;
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
thread_group_cputime(p, &totals);
ns = totals.sum_exec_runtime + do_task_delta_exec(p, rq);
task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
return ns;
* Account user cpu time to a process.
* @p: the process that the cpu time gets accounted to
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment