lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH clocksource] Reject bogus watchdog clocksource measurements
    On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:42:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

    [...]
    > > > @@ -448,8 +448,26 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
    > > > continue;
    > > > }
    > > > if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
    > >
    > > Just recalled one thing, that it may be better to check 'cs_nsec'
    > > instead of 'wd_nsec', as some watchdog may have small wrap-around
    > > value. IIRC, HPET's counter is 32 bits long and wraps at about
    > > 300 seconds, and PMTIMER's counter is 24 bits which wraps at about
    > > 3 ~ 4 seconds. So when a long stall of the watchdog timer happens,
    > > the watchdog's value could 'overflow' many times.
    > >
    > > And usually the 'current' closcksource has longer wrap time than
    > > the watchdog.
    >
    > Why not both?

    You mean checking both clocksource and the watchdog? It's fine for
    me, though I still trust clocksource more.

    I checked some old emails and found some long stall logs for reference.

    * one stall of 471 seconds

    [ 2410.694068] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU262: Marking clocksource 'tsc' as unstable because the skew is too large:
    [ 2410.706920] clocksource: 'hpet' wd_nsec: 0 wd_now: ffd70be2 wd_last: 40da633b mask: ffffffff
    [ 2410.718583] clocksource: 'tsc' cs_nsec: 471766594285 cs_now: 44f62c184e9 cs_last: 394a7a43771 mask: ffffffffffffffff
    [ 2410.732568] clocksource: 'tsc' is current clocksource.
    [ 2410.740553] tsc: Marking TSC unstable due to clocksource watchdog
    [ 2410.747611] TSC found unstable after boot, most likely due to broken BIOS. Use 'tsc=unstable'.
    [ 2410.757321] sched_clock: Marking unstable (2398804490960, 11943006672)<-(2419023952548, -8276474713)
    [ 2410.767741] clocksource: Checking clocksource tsc synchronization from CPU 233 to CPUs 0,73,93-94,226,454,602,821.
    [ 2410.784045] clocksource: Switched to clocksource hpet


    * another one of 5 seconds

    [ 3302.211708] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU9: Marking clocksource 'tsc' as unstable because the skew is too large:
    [ 3302.211710] clocksource: 'acpi_pm' wd_nsec: 312227950 wd_now: 92367f wd_last: 8128bd mask: ffffff
    [ 3302.211712] clocksource: 'tsc' cs_nsec: 4999196389 cs_now: 9e811223a9754 cs_last: 9e80e767df194 mask: ffffffffffffffff
    [ 3302.211714] clocksource: 'tsc' is current clocksource.
    [ 3302.211716] tsc: Marking TSC unstable due to clocksource watchdog


    >
    > if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2) || cs_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
    >
    > > > - /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
    > > > - pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval, probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
    > > > + bool needwarn = false;
    > > > + u64 wd_lb;
    > > > +
    > > > + cs->wd_bogus_count++;
    > > > + if (!cs->wd_bogus_shift) {
    > > > + needwarn = true;
    > > > + } else {
    > > > + delta = clocksource_delta(wdnow, cs->wd_last_bogus, watchdog->mask);
    > > > + wd_lb = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta, watchdog->mult, watchdog->shift);
    > > > + if ((1 << cs->wd_bogus_shift) * wdi <= wd_lb)
    > > > + needwarn = true;
    > >
    > > I'm not sure if we need to check the last_bogus counter, or just
    > > the current interval 'cs_nsec' is what we care, and some code
    > > like this ?
    >
    > I thought we wanted exponential backoff? Do you really get that from
    > the changes below?

    Aha, I misunderstood your words. I thought to only report one time for
    each 2, 4, 8, ... 256 seconds stall, and after that only report stall
    of 512+ seconds. So your approach looks good to me, as our intention is
    to avoid the flood of warning message.

    Thanks,
    Feng

    > And should we be using something like the jiffies counter to measure the
    > exponential backoff?
    >
    > Thanx, Paul
    >
    > > diff --git a/include/linux/clocksource.h b/include/linux/clocksource.h
    > > index daac05aedf56..3910dbb9b960 100644
    > > --- a/include/linux/clocksource.h
    > > +++ b/include/linux/clocksource.h
    > > @@ -125,7 +125,6 @@ struct clocksource {
    > > struct list_head wd_list;
    > > u64 cs_last;
    > > u64 wd_last;
    > > - u64 wd_last_bogus;
    > > int wd_bogus_shift;
    > > unsigned long wd_bogus_count;
    > > unsigned long wd_bogus_count_last;
    > > diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
    > > index 6537ffa02e44..8e6d498b1492 100644
    > > --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
    > > +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
    > > @@ -442,28 +442,18 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
    > >
    > > /* Check for bogus measurements. */
    > > wdi = jiffies_to_nsecs(WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
    > > - if (wd_nsec < (wdi >> 2)) {
    > > + if (cs_nsec < (wdi >> 2)) {
    > > /* This usually indicates broken timer code or hardware. */
    > > - pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced only %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
    > > + pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: clocksource '%s' advanced only %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), cs->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
    > > continue;
    > > }
    > > - if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
    > > - bool needwarn = false;
    > > - u64 wd_lb;
    > > -
    > > + if (cs_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
    > > cs->wd_bogus_count++;
    > > - if (!cs->wd_bogus_shift) {
    > > - needwarn = true;
    > > - } else {
    > > - delta = clocksource_delta(wdnow, cs->wd_last_bogus, watchdog->mask);
    > > - wd_lb = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta, watchdog->mult, watchdog->shift);
    > > - if ((1 << cs->wd_bogus_shift) * wdi <= wd_lb)
    > > - needwarn = true;
    > > - }
    > > - if (needwarn) {
    > > + if (!cs->wd_bogus_shift ||
    > > + (1 << cs->wd_bogus_shift) * wdi <= cs_nsec) {
    > > /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
    > > - pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval (%lu additional), probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL, cs->wd_bogus_count - cs->wd_bogus_count_last);
    > > - cs->wd_last_bogus = wdnow;
    > > + pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval (%lu additional), probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), cs->name, cs_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL, cs->wd_bogus_count - cs->wd_bogus_count_last);
    > > +
    > > if (cs->wd_bogus_shift < 10)
    > > cs->wd_bogus_shift++;
    > > cs->wd_bogus_count_last = cs->wd_bogus_count;
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Feng
    > >
    > >
    > > > + }
    > > > + if (needwarn) {
    > > > + /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
    > > > + pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval (%lu additional), probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL, cs->wd_bogus_count - cs->wd_bogus_count_last);
    > > > + cs->wd_last_bogus = wdnow;
    > > > + if (cs->wd_bogus_shift < 10)
    > > > + cs->wd_bogus_shift++;
    > > > + cs->wd_bogus_count_last = cs->wd_bogus_count;
    > > > + }
    > > > continue;
    > > > }
    > > >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-11-01 06:45    [W:4.579 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site