cpu-timers: Change SIGEV_NONE timer implementation

When user sets up a timer without associated signal and process does
not use any other cpu timers and does not exit, tsk->signal->cputimer
is enabled and running forever.

Avoid running the timer for no reason.

I used below program to check patch does not break current user space
visible behavior.

 #include <sys/time.h>
 #include <signal.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <string.h>
 #include <time.h>
 #include <unistd.h>
 #include <assert.h>

 void consume_cpu(void)
 {
	int i = 0;
	int count = 0;

	for(i=0; i<100000000; i++)
		count++;
 }

 int main(void)
 {
	int i;
	struct sigaction act;
	struct sigevent evt = { };
	timer_t tid;
	struct itimerspec spec = { };

	evt.sigev_notify = SIGEV_NONE;
	assert(timer_create(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &evt,  &tid) == 0);

	spec.it_value.tv_sec = 10;
	assert(timer_settime(tid, 0, &spec,  NULL) == 0);

	for (i = 0; i < 30; i++) {
		consume_cpu();
		memset(&spec, 0, sizeof(spec));
		assert(timer_gettime(tid, &spec) == 0);
		printf("%lu.%09lu\n",
			(unsigned long) spec.it_value.tv_sec,
			(unsigned long) spec.it_value.tv_nsec);
	}

	assert(timer_delete(tid) == 0);
	return 0;
 }

Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
index cce2f0b..7d9d0fa 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -615,7 +615,12 @@ static void arm_timer(struct k_itimer *timer)
  */
 static void cpu_timer_fire(struct k_itimer *timer)
 {
-       if (unlikely(timer->sigq == NULL)) {
+       if ((timer->it_sigev_notify & ~SIGEV_THREAD_ID) == SIGEV_NONE) {
+               /*
+                * User don't want any signal.
+                */
+               timer->it.cpu.expires.sched = 0;
+       } else if (unlikely(timer->sigq == NULL)) {
                /*
                 * This a special case for clock_nanosleep,
                 * not a normal timer from sys_timer_create.
@@ -784,7 +789,6 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_set(struct k_itimer *timer, int flags,
         */
        timer->it.cpu.expires = new_expires;
        if (new_expires.sched != 0 &&
-           (timer->it_sigev_notify & ~SIGEV_THREAD_ID) != SIGEV_NONE &&
            cpu_time_before(timer->it_clock, val, new_expires)) {
                arm_timer(timer);
        }
@@ -809,7 +813,6 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_set(struct k_itimer *timer, int flags,
        timer->it_overrun = -1;
 
        if (new_expires.sched != 0 &&
-           (timer->it_sigev_notify & ~SIGEV_THREAD_ID) != SIGEV_NONE &&
            !cpu_time_before(timer->it_clock, val, new_expires)) {
                /*
                 * The designated time already passed, so we notify
@@ -883,25 +886,6 @@ void posix_cpu_timer_get(struct k_itimer *timer, struct itimerspec *itp)
                read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
        }
 
-       if ((timer->it_sigev_notify & ~SIGEV_THREAD_ID) == SIGEV_NONE) {
-               if (timer->it.cpu.incr.sched == 0 &&
-                   cpu_time_before(timer->it_clock,
-                                   timer->it.cpu.expires, now)) {
-                       /*
-                        * Do-nothing timer expired and has no reload,
-                        * so it's as if it was never set.
-                        */
-                       timer->it.cpu.expires.sched = 0;
-                       itp->it_value.tv_sec = itp->it_value.tv_nsec = 0;
-                       return;
-               }
-               /*
-                * Account for any expirations and reloads that should
-                * have happened.
-                */
-               bump_cpu_timer(timer, now);
-       }
-
        if (unlikely(clear_dead)) {
                /*
                 * We've noticed that the thread is dead, but