linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Improve clocksource unstable warning

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTikd0rstGDDcNdb8u2_H09giaZVxPY1Y5qaiy6_O@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:51:07 -0500
From:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve clocksource unstable warning

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 16:52 -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>> > Ideas:
>>> > 1) Maybe should we check that we get two sequential failures where the
>>> > cpu seems fast before we throw out the TSC? This will still fall over
>>> > in some stall cases (ie: a poor rt task hogging the cpu  for 10
>>> > minutes, pausing for a 10th of a second and then continuing to hog the
>>> > cpu).
>>> >
>>> > 2) We could look at the TSC delta, and if it appears outside the order
>>> > of 2-10x faster (i don't think any cpus scale up even close to 10x in
>>> > freq, but please correct me if so), then assume we just have been
>>> > blocked from running and don't throw out the TSC.
>>> >
>>> > 3) Similar to #2 we could look at the max interval that the watchdog
>>> > clocksource provides, and if the TSC delta is greater then that, avoid
>>> > throwing things out. This combined with #2 might narrow out the false
>>> > positives fairly well.
>>> >
>>> > Any additional thoughts here?
>>>
>>> Yes.  As far as I know, the watchdog doesn't give arbitrary values
>>> when it wraps; it just wraps.  Here's a possible heuristic, in
>>> pseudocode:
>>>
>>> wd_now_1 = (read watchdog)
>>> cs_now = (read clocksource)
>>>
>>> cs_elapsed = cs_now - cs_last;
>>> wd_elapsed = wd_now_1 - wd_last;
>>>
>>> if ( abs(wd_elapsed - cs_elapsed) < MAX_DELTA)
>>>   return;  // We're OK.
>>>
>>> wd_now_2 = (read watchdog again)
>>> if (abs(wd_now_1 - wd_now_2) > MAX_DELTA / 2)
>>>   bail;  // The clocksource might be unstable, but we either just
>>> lagged or the watchdog is unstable, and in either case we don't gain
>>> anything by marking the clocksource unstable.
>>
>> This is more easily done by just bounding the clocksource read:
>> wd_now_1 = watchdog->read()
>> cs_now = clocksource->read()
>> wd_now_2 = watchdog->read()
>>
>> if (((wd_now_2 - wd_now_1)&watchdog->mask) > SOMETHING_SMALL)
>>        bail; // hit an SMI or some sort of long preemption
>>
>>> if ( wd_elapsed < cs_elapsed and ( (cs_elapsed - wd_elapsed) %
>>> wd_wrapping_time ) < (something fairly small) )
>>>   bail;  // The watchdog most likely wrapped.
>>
>> Huh. The modulo bit may need tweaking as its not immediately clear its
>> right. Maybe the following is clearer?:
>>
>> if ((cs_elapsed > wd_wrapping_time)
>>        && (abs((cs_elapsed % wd_wrapping_time)-wd_elapsed) < MAX_DELTA)
>>        // should be ok.
>
> I think this is wrong if wd_elapsed is large (which could happen if
> the real wd time is something like (2 * wd_wrapping_time -
> MAX_DELTA/4)).

Also wrong if cs_elapsed is just slightly less than wd_wrapping_time
but the wd clocksource runs enough faster that it wrapped.

--Andy

>
> --Andy
>
--
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/