Re: [BUG, bisect] hrtimer: severe lag after suspend & resume

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I suspect the problem is the change to clock_was_set_seq in
> timekeeping_update is done prior to mirroring the time state to the
> shadow-timekeeper. Thus the next time we do update_wall_time() the
> updated sequence is overwritten by whats in the shadow copy. The
> attached patch moving the modification up seems to avoid the issue for
> me.

Duh, yes.
 
> Thomas:  Looking at the problematic change, I'm not a big fan of it.
> Caching timekeeping state here in the hrtimer code has been a source
> of bugs in the past, and I'm not sure I see how avoiding copying
> 24bytes is that big of a win. Especially since it adds more state to
> the timekeeper and hrtimer base that we have to read and mange.

It's not about copying 24 bytes. It's about touching 3 cache lines for
nothing. In situations where we run high frequency periodic timers on
clock monotonic and nothing is going on in the other clock domains,
which is a pretty common situation, this is measurable in terms of
cache utilization. I went great length to optimize the cache footprint
and access patterns and that unconditional update really makes a
measurable difference.

Thanks,

	tglx