Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:36:50 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: Avoid accidental unstable marking of clocksources |
| |
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:36:51AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 06:07:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 03:59:15PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 10:24:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/14/21 21:08, Feng Tang wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Thank you both for the data! > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > If anything, adding that extra read would cause me to -reduce- the number > > > > > > of retries to avoid increasing the per-watchdog overhead. > > > > > I understand Waiman's concern here, and in our test patch, the 2 > > > > > consecutive watchdog read delay check is done inside this retrying > > > > > loop accompanying the 'cs' read, and once an abnormal delay is found, > > > > > the watchdog check is skipped without waiting for the max-retries to > > > > > complete. > > > > > > > > > > Our test data shows the consecutive delay is not always big even when > > > > > the system is much stressed, that's why I suggest to increase the > > > > > retries. > > > > > > > > If we need a large number of retries to avoid triggering the unstable TSC > > > > message, we should consider increase the threshod instead. Right? > > > > > > > > That is why my patch 2 makes the max skew value a configurable option so > > > > that we can tune it if necessary. > > > > > > I'm fine with it, though the ideal case I expected is with carefully > > > picked values for max_retries/screw_threshhold, we could save the users > > > from configuring these. But given the complexity of all HWs out there, > > > it's not an easy goal. > > > > That is my goal as well, but I expect that more experience, testing, > > and patches will be required to reach that goal. > > > > > And I still suggest to put the consecutive watchdog read check inside > > > the retry loop, so that it could bail out early when detecting the > > > abnormal delay. > > > > If the HPET read shows abnormal delay, agreed. But if the abnormal > > delay is only in the clocksource under test (TSC in this case), then > > a re-read seems to me to make sense. > > Yes, I agree. The retry logic you introeduced does help to filter > many false alarms from a watchdog. > > > > Another thing is we may need to set the 'watchdog_reset_pending', as > > > under the stress, there could be consecutive many times of "skipping" > > > watchdog check, and the saved value of 'cs' and 'watchdog' should be > > > reset. > > > > My thought was to count a read failure only if the HPET read did not > > have excessive delays. This means that a cache-buster workload could > > indefinitely delay a clock-skew check, which was one reason that I > > was thinking in terms of using the actual measured delays to set the > > clock-skew check criterion. > > > > Either way, something like Waiman's patch checking the HPET delay looks > > to me to be valuable. > > Yes, and Wainman is working on a new version.
Looking forward to seeing it!
> btw, here is our easy reproducer (the case you have worked with Oliver > Sang), running the stress-ng's case (192 is the CPU number of the test > box): > > sudo stress-ng --timeout 30 --times --verify --metrics-brief --ioport 192
Good to know, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
| |