From de047c1bcd7f7bcfbdc29eb5b439fb332594da3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:47:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] avoid tasklist_lock at getrusage for multithreaded case too Avoid taking tasklist_lock for at getrusage for the multithreaded case too. We don't need to take the tasklist lock for thread traversal of a process since Oleg's do-__unhash_process-under-siglock.patch and related work. Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai Cc: Oleg Nesterov Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- kernel/sys.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c index 0b6ec0e793..fc9ebbbaba 100644 --- a/kernel/sys.c +++ b/kernel/sys.c @@ -1860,23 +1860,20 @@ out: * fields when reaping, so a sample either gets all the additions of a * given child after it's reaped, or none so this sample is before reaping. * - * tasklist_lock locking optimisation: - * If we are current and single threaded, we do not need to take the tasklist - * lock or the siglock. No one else can take our signal_struct away, - * no one else can reap the children to update signal->c* counters, and - * no one else can race with the signal-> fields. - * If we do not take the tasklist_lock, the signal-> fields could be read - * out of order while another thread was just exiting. So we place a - * read memory barrier when we avoid the lock. On the writer side, - * write memory barrier is implied in __exit_signal as __exit_signal releases - * the siglock spinlock after updating the signal-> fields. - * - * We don't really need the siglock when we access the non c* fields - * of the signal_struct (for RUSAGE_SELF) even in multithreaded - * case, since we take the tasklist lock for read and the non c* signal-> - * fields are updated only in __exit_signal, which is called with - * tasklist_lock taken for write, hence these two threads cannot execute - * concurrently. + * Locking: + * We need to take the siglock for CHILDEREN, SELF and BOTH + * for the cases current multithreaded, non-current single threaded + * non-current multithreaded. Thread traversal is now safe with + * the siglock held. + * Strictly speaking, we donot need to take the siglock if we are current and + * single threaded, as no one else can take our signal_struct away, no one + * else can reap the children to update signal->c* counters, and no one else + * can race with the signal-> fields. If we do not take any lock, the + * signal-> fields could be read out of order while another thread was just + * exiting. So we should place a read memory barrier when we avoid the lock. + * On the writer side, write memory barrier is implied in __exit_signal + * as __exit_signal releases the siglock spinlock after updating the signal-> + * fields. But we don't do this yet to keep things simple. * */ @@ -1885,35 +1882,25 @@ static void k_getrusage(struct task_struct *p, int who, struct rusage *r) struct task_struct *t; unsigned long flags; cputime_t utime, stime; - int need_lock = 0; memset((char *) r, 0, sizeof *r); utime = stime = cputime_zero; - if (p != current || !thread_group_empty(p)) - need_lock = 1; - - if (need_lock) { - read_lock(&tasklist_lock); - if (unlikely(!p->signal)) { - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); - return; - } - } else - /* See locking comments above */ - smp_rmb(); + rcu_read_lock(); + if (!lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) { + rcu_read_unlock(); + return; + } switch (who) { case RUSAGE_BOTH: case RUSAGE_CHILDREN: - spin_lock_irqsave(&p->sighand->siglock, flags); utime = p->signal->cutime; stime = p->signal->cstime; r->ru_nvcsw = p->signal->cnvcsw; r->ru_nivcsw = p->signal->cnivcsw; r->ru_minflt = p->signal->cmin_flt; r->ru_majflt = p->signal->cmaj_flt; - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->sighand->siglock, flags); if (who == RUSAGE_CHILDREN) break; @@ -1941,8 +1928,9 @@ static void k_getrusage(struct task_struct *p, int who, struct rusage *r) BUG(); } - if (need_lock) - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); + unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); + rcu_read_unlock(); + cputime_to_timeval(utime, &r->ru_utime); cputime_to_timeval(stime, &r->ru_stime); } -- 2.39.5