mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
To: 连子涵 <17317795071@163.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@gentwo.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Question] Voltage droop from synchronized timer interrupts(tick) on many-core SoCs leads to system instability
Date: Thu,  5 Feb 2026 14:37:11 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260205063714.2579-1-hdanton@sina.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <775bc4a3.3968.19c2c24a1e5.Coremail.17317795071@163.com>

On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 12:52:04 +0800 (CST) =?GBK?B?wazX07qt?= wrote:
> Hi all,
> We have observed a critical voltage droop issue on large-core-count SoC platforms (e.g., 64+ cores) that appears to stem directly from the synchronized periodic timer interrupts(tick) in the Linux kernel. 
> 
> In our testing and power simulations, we found that: 
> When all CPU cores enter the timer interrupt handler simultaneously, there is a sharp, instantaneous power surge and continuous power fluctuations during the interrupt handling window (which lasts several microseconds), leading to significant voltage droop. In severe cases, this droop can cause system instability or even prevent the OS from booting.
> 
> We understand that enabling skew_tick=1 effectively mitigates this by staggering the per-CPU tick timers. However, in certain deployment scenarios, modifying any kernel boot parameter—including skew_tick—is not permitted.
> 
> Given this constraint, we would greatly appreciate your insights on the following technical questions: 
> 1. Why does the timer interrupt path consume so much power and exhibit such large instantaneous variations? Our power simulation shows that the average power during timer interrupt handling is comparable to Dhrystone benchmark. 
> 2. What is the typical duration of a single timer interrupt handler (tick_nohz_handler, etc.) on a modern x86 or ARM core? Is it generally on the order of a few microseconds? 
> 3. Beyond skew_tick=1, are there other kernel mechanisms or runtime strategies that could reduce the power impact of synchronized timer events? Are there plans in future kernel versions to address this issue more fundamentally—especially for many-core platforms? 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for your time and expertise. 
> 
Sounds like a known issue, feel free to see the comments in 2025 [1].

[1] Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skew tick for systems with a large number of processors
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87sejew87r.ffs@tglx/
> 
> Best regards, 
> Zihan Lian <17317795071@163.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-05  6:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-02-05  4:52 连子涵
2026-02-05  6:37 ` Hillf Danton [this message]
2026-02-09 18:33   ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2026-02-06 13:37 ` 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=20260205063714.2579-1-hdanton@sina.com \
    --to=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=17317795071@163.com \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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®