Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:17:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/22 -v2] add get_monotonic_cycles


[ CC'd Daniel Walker, since he had problems with this code ]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> I agree with you that I don't see how the compiler could reorder this.
> So we forget about compiler barriers. Also, the clock source used is a
> synchronized clock source (get_cycles_sync on x86_64), so it should make
> sure the TSC is read at the right moment.
>
> However, what happens if the clock source is, say, the jiffies ?
>
> Is this case, we have :
>
> static cycle_t jiffies_read(void)
> {
>         return (cycle_t) jiffies;
> }
>
> Which is nothing more than a memory read of
>
> extern unsigned long volatile __jiffy_data jiffies;

Yep, and that's not my concern.

>
> I think it is wrong to assume that reads from clock->cycle_raw and from
> jiffies will be ordered correctly in SMP. I am tempted to think that
> ordering memory writes to clock->cycle_raw vs jiffies is also needed in this
> case (where clock->cycle_raw is updated, or where jiffies is updated).
>
> We can fall in the same kind of issue if we read the HPET, which is
> memory I/O based. It does not seems correct to assume that MMIO vs
> normal memory reads are ordered. (pointing back to this article :
> http://lwn.net/Articles/198988/)

That and the dread memory barrier thread that my head is still spinning
on.

Ok, lets take a close look at the code in question. I may be wrong, and if
so, great, we can fix it.

We have this in get_monotonic_cycles:

{
	cycle_t cycle_now, cycle_delta, cycle_monotonic, cycle_last;
	do {
		cycle_monotonic = clock->cycle_monotonic;
		cycle_last = clock->cycle_last;
		cycle_now = clocksource_read(clock);
		cycle_delta = (cycle_now - cycle_last) & clock->mask;
	} while (cycle_monotonic != clock->cycle_monotonic ||
		 cycle_last != clock->cycle_last);
	return cycle_monotonic + cycle_delta;
}

and this in clocksource.h

static inline void clocksource_accumulate(struct clocksource *cs, cycle_t now)
{
	cycle_t offset = (now - cs->cycle_last) & cs->mask;
	cs->cycle_last = now;
	cs->cycle_accumulated += offset;
	cs->cycle_monotonic += offset;
}

now is usually just a clocksource_read() passed in.

The goal is to have clock_monotonic always return something that is
greater than what was read the last time.

Let's make a few assumptions now (for others to shoot them down). One
thing is that we don't need to worry too much about MMIO, because we are
doing a read. This means we need the data right now to contiune. So the
read being a function call should keep gcc from moving stuff around, and
since we are doing an IO read, the order of events should be pretty much
synchronized. in

    1. load cycle_last and cycle_monotonic (we don't care which order)*
    2. read clock source
    3. calculate delta and while() compare (order doesn't matter)

* we might care (see below)

If the above is incorrect, then we need to fix get_monotonic_cycles.

in clocksource_accumulate, we have:

  offset = ((now = cs->read()) - cycle_last) & cs->mask;
  cycle_last = now;
  cycle_accumulate += offset;
  cycle_monotonic += offset;

The order of events here are. Using the same reasoning as above, the read
must be first and completed because for gcc it's a function, and for IO,
it needs to return data.

  1. cs->read
  2. update cycle_last, cycle_accumulate, cycle_monotonic.

Can we assume, if the above for get_monotonic_cycles is correct, that
since we read and compare cycle_last and cycle_monotonic, that neither of
them have changed over the read? So we have a snapshot of the
clocksource_accumulate.

So the worst thing that I can think of, is that cycle_monotonic is update
*before* cycle_last:

   cycle_monotonic += offest;
     <get_monotonic_cycles run on other CPU>
   cycle_last = now;


cycle_last = 5
cycle_monotonic = 0


    CPU 0                         CPU 1
  ----------                  -------------
 cs->read() = 10
 offset = 10 - 5 = 5
 cycle_monotonic = 5
                            cycle_monotonic = 5
                            cycle_last = 5
                            cs->read() = 11
                            delta = 11 - 5 = 6
                            cycle_monotonic and cycle_last still same
                            return 5 + 6 = 11

  cycle_last = 10

                            cycle_monotonic = 5
                            cycle_last = 10
                            cs->read() = 12
                            delta = 12 - 10 = 2
                            cycle_monotonic and cycle_last still same
                            return 5 + 2 = 7

                           **** ERROR *****

So, we *do* need memory barriers.  Looks like cycle_last and
cycle_monotonic need to be synchronized.

OK, will this do?

cycle_t notrace get_monotonic_cycles(void)
{
        cycle_t cycle_now, cycle_delta, cycle_monotonic, cycle_last;
        do {
                cycle_monotonic = clock->cycle_monotonic;
		smp_rmb();
                cycle_last = clock->cycle_last;
                cycle_now = clocksource_read(clock);
                cycle_delta = (cycle_now - cycle_last) & clock->mask;
        } while (cycle_monotonic != clock->cycle_monotonic ||
                 cycle_last != clock->cycle_last);
        return cycle_monotonic + cycle_delta;
}

and this in clocksource.h

static inline void clocksource_accumulate(struct clocksource *cs, cycle_t now)
{
        cycle_t offset = (now - cs->cycle_last) & cs->mask;
        cs->cycle_last = now;
	smp_wmb();
        cs->cycle_accumulated += offset;
        cs->cycle_monotonic += offset;
}

We may still get to a situation where cycle_monotonic is of the old value
and cycle_last is of the new value. That would give us a smaller delta
than we want.

Lets look at this, with a slightly different situation.

cycle_last = 5
cycle_monotonic = 0


    CPU 0                         CPU 1
  ----------                  -------------
 cs->read() = 10
 offset = 10 - 5 = 5
 cycle_last = 10
 cycle_monotonic = 5

                            cycle_monotonic = 5
                            cycle_last = 10
                            cs->read() = 12
                            delta = 12 - 10 = 2
                            cycle_monotonic and cycle_last still same
                            return 5 + 2 = 7


 cs->read() = 13
 offset = 13 - 10 = 2
 cycle_last = 13

                            cycle_monotonic = 5
                            cycle_last = 13
                            cs->read() = 14
                            delta = 14 - 13 = 1
                            cycle_monotonic and cycle_last still same
                            return 5 + 1 = 6

                        **** ERROR ****

Crap, looks like we do need a stronger locking here :-(

Hmm, I might as well just use seq_locks, and make sure that tracing
does not hit them.

Thanks!

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists