Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Nov 2021 22:43:15 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: Avoid accidental unstable marking of clocksources | From | Waiman Long <> |
| |
On 11/12/21 00:44, Feng Tang wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 06:43:11AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:57:03PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 05:17:31PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>>> Since commit db3a34e17433 ("clocksource: Retry clock read if long delays >>>> detected") and commit 2e27e793e280 ("clocksource: Reduce clocksource-skew >>>> threshold"), it is found that tsc clocksource fallback to hpet can >>>> sometimes happen on both Intel and AMD systems especially when they are >>>> running stressful benchmarking workloads. Of the 23 systems tested with >>>> a v5.14 kernel, 10 of them have switched to hpet clock source during >>>> the test run. >>>> >>>> The result of falling back to hpet is a drastic reduction of performance >>>> when running benchmarks. For example, the fio performance tests can >>>> drop up to 70% whereas the iperf3 performance can drop up to 80%. >>>> >>>> 4 hpet fallbacks happened during bootup. They were: >>>> >>>> [ 8.749399] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: hpet read-back delay of 263750ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> [ 12.044610] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU19: hpet read-back delay of 186166ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> [ 17.336941] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU28: hpet read-back delay of 182291ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> [ 17.518565] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU34: hpet read-back delay of 252196ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> >>>> Other fallbacks happen when the systems were running stressful >>>> benchmarks. For example: >>>> >>>> [ 2685.867873] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU117: hpet read-back delay of 57269ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> [46215.471228] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU8: hpet read-back delay of 61460ns, attempt 4, marking unstable >>>> >>>> Commit 2e27e793e280 ("clocksource: Reduce clocksource-skew threshold"), >>>> changed the skew margin from 100us to 50us. I think this is too small >>>> and can easily be exceeded when running some stressful workloads on >>>> a thermally stressed system. So it is switched back to 100us. On >>>> the other hand, it doesn't look like we need to increase the minimum >>>> uncertainty margin. So it is kept the same at 100us too. >>>> >>>> Even a maximum skew margin of 100us may be too small in for some systems >>>> when booting up especially if those systems are under thermal stress. To >>>> eliminate the case that the large skew is due to the system being too >>>> busy slowing down the reading of both the watchdog and the clocksource, >>>> a final check is done by reading watchdog time again and comparing the >>>> consecutive watchdog timing read delay against WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW/2. If >>>> that delay exceeds the limit, we assume that the system is just too >>>> busy. A warning will be printed to the console and the watchdog check >>>> is then skipped for this round. For example: >>>> >>>> [ 8.789316] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: hpet consecutive read-back delay of 174541ns, system too busy >>> >>> >>> I think it may be better to add more details about the root cause, other >>> than that it looks good to me, as we tested similar patch on our test >>> platforms. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> >> Thank you both! >> >> I agree on the bit about root cause. Would it make sense to compare the >> difference between HPET reads 1 and 2 (containing the read of the TSC) >> and the difference between HPET reads 2 and 3? If the 2-1 difference was >> no more than (say) 8/7ths of the 3-2 difference, or the 2-1 difference >> was no more than (say) 20 microseconds more than the 3-2 difference, >> this could be considered a good-as-it-gets read, ending the retry loop. >> Then if the 3-1 difference was greater than the default (100 microseconds >> in current -rcu), that difference could be substituted for that particular >> clocksource watchdog check. With a console message noting the unusually >> high overhead (but not a splat). >> >> So if it took 75 microseconds for each HPET read and 1 microsecond for >> the TSC read, then 226 microseconds would be substituted for the default >> of 100 microseconds for that cycle's skew cutoff. Unless the previous >> skew cutoff was larger, in which case the previous cutoff should be >> used instead. Either way, the current cutoff is recorded for comparison >> for the next clocksource watchdog check. >> >> If the 3-1 difference was greater than 62.5 milliseconds, a warning should >> probably be emitted anyway. > > I can test the patch with our cases that could reproduce the problem. > >> Or did you have something else in mind? > I'm not sure the detail in Waiman's cases, and in our cases (stress-ng) > the delay between watchdog's (HPET here) read were not linear, that > from debug data, sometimes the 3-2 difference could be bigger or much > bigger than the 2-1 difference. > > The reason could be the gap between 2 reads depends hugely on the system > pressure at that time that 3 HPET read happens. On our test box (a > 2-Socket Cascade Lake AP server), the 2-1 and 3-2 difference are stably > about 2.5 us, while under the stress it could be bumped to from 6 us > to 2800 us. > > So I think checking the 3-2 difference plus increasing the max retries > to 10 may be a simple way, if the watchdog read is found to be > abnormally long, we skip this round of check.
On one of the test system, I had measured that normal delay (hpet->tsc->hpet) was normally a bit over 2us. It was a bit more than 4us at bootup time. However, the same system under stress could have a delay of over 200us at bootup time. When I measured the consecutive hpet delay, it was about 180us. So hpet read did dominate the total clocksource read delay.
I would not suggest increasing the max retries as it may still fail in most cases because the system stress will likely not be going away within a short time. So we are likely just wasting cpu times. I believe we should just skip it if it is the watchdog read that is causing most of the delay.
Cheers, Longman
| |