Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] Clocksource: Avoid misjudgment of clocksource

[yanghui <yanghui.def@bytedance.com>]

在 2021/10/9 上午11:38, John Stultz 写道:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:22 PM yanghui <yanghui.def@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> 在 2021/10/9 上午7:45, John Stultz 写道:
>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 1:03 AM yanghui <yanghui.def@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> clocksource_watchdog is executed every WATCHDOG_INTERVAL(0.5s) by
>>>> Timer. But sometimes system is very busy and the Timer cannot be
>>>> executed in 0.5sec. For example,if clocksource_watchdog be executed
>>>> after 10sec, the calculated value of abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) will
>>>> be enlarged. Then the current clocksource will be misjudged as
>>>> unstable. So we add conditions to prevent the clocksource from
>>>> being misjudged.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: yanghui <yanghui.def@bytedance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    kernel/time/clocksource.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>>>> index b8a14d2fb5ba..d535beadcbc8 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>>>> @@ -136,8 +136,10 @@ static void __clocksource_change_rating(struct clocksource *cs, int rating);
>>>>
>>>>    /*
>>>>     * Interval: 0.5sec.
>>>> + * MaxInterval: 1s.
>>>>     */
>>>>    #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
>>>> +#define WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS (NSEC_PER_SEC)
>>>>
>>>>    static void clocksource_watchdog_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>    {
>>>> @@ -404,7 +406,9 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
>>>>
>>>>                   /* Check the deviation from the watchdog clocksource. */
>>>>                   md = cs->uncertainty_margin + watchdog->uncertainty_margin;
>>>> -               if (abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > md) {
>>>> +               if ((abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > md) &&
>>>> +                       cs_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS &&
>>>
>>> Sorry, it's been awhile since I looked at this code, but why are you
>>> bounding the clocksource delta here?
>>> It seems like if the clocksource being watched was very wrong (with a
>>> delta larger than the MAX_INTERVAL_NS), we'd want to throw it out.
>>>
>>>> +                       wd_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS) {
>>>
>>> Bounding the watchdog interval on the check does seem reasonable.
>>> Though one may want to keep track that if we are seeing too many of
>>> these delayed watchdog checks we provide some feedback via dmesg.
>>
>>     Yes, only to check watchdog delta is more reasonable.
>>     I think Only have dmesg is not enough, because if tsc was be misjudged
>>     as unstable then switch to hpet. And hpet is very expensive for
>>     performance, so if we want to switch to tsc the only way is to reboot
>>     the server. We need to prevent the switching of the clock source in
>>     case of misjudgment.
>>     Circumstances of misjudgment:
>>     if clocksource_watchdog is executed after 10sec, the value of wd_delta
>>     and cs_delta also be about 10sec, also the value of (cs_nsec- wd_nsec)
>>     will be magnified 20 times(10sec/0.5sec).The delta value is magnified.
> 
> Yea, it might be worth calculating an error rate instead of assuming
> the interval is fixed, but also just skipping the check may be
> reasonable assuming timers aren't constantly being delayed (and it's
> more of a transient state).
> 
> At some point if the watchdog timer is delayed too much, the watchdog
I mean the execution cycle of this function(static void 
clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)) has been delayed.

> hardware will fully wrap and one can no longer properly compare
> intervals. That's why the timer length is chosen as such, so having
> that timer delayed is really pushing the system into a potentially bad
> state where other subtle problems are likely to crop up.
> 
> So I do worry these watchdog robustness fixes are papering over a
> problem, pushing expectations closer to the edge of how far the system
> should tolerate bad behavior. Because at some point we'll fall off. :)

Sorry,I don't seem to understand what you mean. Should I send your Patch 
v2 ?

thanks
-hui
> 
> thanks
> -john
>