From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758273AbcATJW6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 04:22:58 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:57486 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751562AbcATJWy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 04:22:54 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:21:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jeff Merkey <linux.mdb@gmail.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG REPORT] ktime_get_ts64 causes Hard Lockup
In-Reply-To: <CAO6TR8V45TwC2YZF863o+Gaf5BboDaQg3+naV=qUNeXiRa4LPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601201015000.3575@nanos>
References: <CAO6TR8UORNMgEYCxW9s-UcRjiOzs2CUpyZ+Wd=KoDv045ByiCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO6TR8XHdnvfW1Y2yWBTnGz4d2fjgXvj_9yHmfxSork2bBNNew@mail.gmail.com> <CAO6TR8V45TwC2YZF863o+Gaf5BboDaQg3+naV=qUNeXiRa4LPQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Jeff Merkey wrote:
> Nasty bug but trivial fix for this.  What happens here is RAX (nsecs)
> gets set to a huge value (RAX = 0x17AE7F57C671EA7D) and passed through

And how exactly does that happen?

0x17AE7F57C671EA7D = 1.70644e+18  nsec
		   = 1.70644e+09  sec
		   = 2.84407e+07  min
		   = 474011	  hrs
		   = 19750.5	  days
		   = 54.1109	  years

That's the real issue, not what you are trying to 'fix' in timespec_add_ns()

> Submitting a patch to fix this after I regress and test it.   Since it
> makes no sense to loop on a simple calculation, fix should be:
> 
> static __always_inline void timespec_add_ns(struct timespec *a, u64 ns)
> {
> 	a->tv_sec += div64_u64_rem(a->tv_nsec + ns, NSEC_PER_SEC, &ns);
> 	a->tv_nsec = ns;
> }

No. It's not that simple, because div64_u64_rem() is expensive on 32bit
architectures which have no hardware 64/32 division. And that's going to hurt
for the normal tick case where we have at max one iteration.

Thanks,

	tglx