linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of irq time -v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:53:55 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of irq
 time -v3

On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 16:32 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 10:29 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> >> So, on x86, sched_clock_stable is not set on all other kind of CPUs
> >> and my test system happens to be one of them. So, sched_clock_cpu()
> >> falls back to tick based even when TSC is not marked unstable and
> >> clocksource is using TSC for timing.
> >
> > It is never tick based!! It's tick augmented! Because TSC is such a
> > piece of crap we use external (slow) means of determining a window in
> > which the TSC should live and then use the TSC to generate high
> > resolution offsets inside that.
> >
> > So even if your usage is in the hardirq context that moves that window
> > it should all work out.
> >
> 
> You mean there should not be any "jumps" noticed with
> sched_clock_cpu() when we are idle and get a interrupt?
> Atleast thats what I am seeing. May be there is some other bug
> somewhere causing that.
> 
> Loooking at one snapshot from my earlier log
> 
> <idle>-0     []  1697.915040: : START 1700899887146
> // We were idle and got an interrupt and recorded sched_clock_cpu() as
> 1700899887146
> <idle>-0     []  1697.915047: : HARD STOP 1700902008678, delta 2121532
> // We finished handling the interrupt and recorded sched_clock_cpu()
> as 1700902008678
> // So, delta we see is > 2ms
> // This is trace_printk based on local clock, which is using sched_clock()
> // So, the trace timing shows delta of 7 us, which is kind of expected time here

Egads, yes that would be a kernel/sched_clock.c buglet..

So we're in NOHZ and an IRQ/NMI happens that ends up calling
sched_clock_cpu() and friends without us leaving NOHZ.

drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c:acpi_idle_enter_simple() calls
sched_clock_idle_{sleep,wakeup}_event() around the idle loop -- are
there idle methods missing this, and or do we handle the interrupt
before the wakeup event?

Also, in irq_enter() we call __irq_enter() which does
account_system_vtime() before tick_check_idle() which restarts various
timers and resets jiffies and in fact already calls
sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event().

Gah what a mess.. we could try a code shuffle to restart timer/clock
bits before calling into account_system_vtime(), although I bet that'll
be interesting. But I see no way to fix the NMI during NOHZ problem, its
not like we can actually do GTOD from NMI context :/

The thing is, I really do _NOT_ trust TSC to be sane enough to use like
you want to do, its really proven itself to be reliably crap.


--
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/