From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Mika Kuoppala" <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>,
"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Early timeouts due to inaccurate jiffies during system suspend/resume
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:01:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180423170128.mf7g26rniimm7asf@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804191256200.1563@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while checking bug [1], I noticed that jiffies based timing loops like
> >
> > expire = jiffies + timeout + 1;
> > while (!time_after(jiffies, expire))
> > do_something;
> >
> > can last shorter than expected (that is less than timeout).
>
> Yes, that can happen when the timer interrupt is delayed long enough for
> whatever reason. If you need accurate timing then you need to use
> ktime_get().
Thanks. I always regarded jiffies as non-accurate, but something that
gives a minimum time delay guarantee (when adjusted by +1 as above). I
wonder if there are other callers in kernel that don't expect an early
timeout.
We switched now to using ktime_get_raw() in the i915 driver.
>
> > After some ftracing it seems like jiffies gets stale due to a missed
> > LAPIC timer interrupt after the interrupt is armed in
> > lapic_next_deadline() and before jiffies is sampled at 2. above.
> > Eventually the interrupt does get delivered, at which point jiffies gets
> > updated via tick_do_update_jiffies64() with a >1 ticks increment.
> > Between lapic_next_deadline() and the - late - delivery of the interrupt
> > the CPU on which the interrupt is armed doesn't go idle.
>
> That's odd. I have no real explanation for that.
Looks like the reason is IRQ latency. For reference here are the
longest ones I found with irqsoff ftracing, all running with IRQs disabled
during system resume:
hpet_rtc_interrupt()->hpet_rtc_timer_reinit():
do { ... } while(!hpet_cnt_ahead(...));
takes sometimes up to ~40msec for me.
hpet_rtc_interrupt()->mc146818_get_time():
if (mc146818_is_updating()) mdelay(20);
driver_probe_device->atkbd_connect()->i8042_port_close()->__i8042_command()->i8042_wait_write():
takes sometimes up to ~10msec for me.
All the above paired with asynchronous calling of the drivers' resume
hooks may result in the jumps in jiffies I saw.
--Imre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-23 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-19 1:32 Imre Deak
2018-04-19 11:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-23 17:01 ` Imre Deak [this message]
2018-04-24 14:07 ` Imre Deak
2018-04-24 14:21 ` Ville Syrjälä
2018-04-26 21:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180423170128.mf7g26rniimm7asf@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com \
--to=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.kuoppala@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®