linux-kernel - Re: getnstimeofday stuck for several milliseconds?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <50A18FB6.90407@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:09:26 -0800
From:	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	David Henningsson <david.henningsson@...onical.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	"Rostedt, Steven" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: getnstimeofday stuck for several milliseconds?

On 11/12/2012 03:53 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 12:51 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
>> Hi LKML,
>>
>> I'm trying to make audio more useful in everyday low-latency 
>> scenarios such as gaming or VOIP.
>>
>> While doing so, I ran the wakeup_rt tracer, to track the time from 
>> PulseAudio requesting wakeup (through hrtimers), to the thread 
>> actually running.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much overhead added by the wakeup_rt tracer itself, 
>> but I got 9 ms on one machine and 20 ms on another, which I consider 
>> to be quite a lot even for a standard kernel (i e without RT or other 
>> special configuration).
>>
>> The 9 ms example is pastebinned at [1], and here's where we get stuck 
>> for most of the time:
>>
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 1105us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 1106us!: getnstimeofday <-ktime_get_real
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 7823us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
>>
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 7890us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 7891us!: getnstimeofday <-ktime_get_real
>>   <idle>-0       3d... 9023us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
>>
>
> Looking at the trace you posted here: http://pastebin.se/6iMRdDfR
>
> The trace also looks like its the cpuidle to interrupt transition 
> where you're seeing this.  I sort of wonder if its mis-attributing the 
> idle time to the getnstimeofday()? Mainly because you don't seem to 
> spend much time in intel_idle() otherwise.
>
> Or maybe we're both misreading it and its saying there's a delay 
> between the first ktime_get_real() from intel_idle() to the second 
> call of ktime_get_real(), between which we're in deep idle (which 
> would make sense)?
>
The more I think about it, I'm pretty sure this is the case:
The full context you need is:
     <idle>-0       3d... 7890us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
     <idle>-0       3d... 7891us!: getnstimeofday <-ktime_get_real
     <idle>-0       3d... 9023us : ktime_get_real <-intel_idle
     <idle>-0       3d... 9024us : getnstimeofday <-ktime_get_real

Where intel_idle() is calling ktime_get_real twice in a row, and 
inbetween we see a large latency. Looking at intel_idle() the code in 
question is:

     kt_before = ktime_get_real();

     stop_critical_timings();
     if (!need_resched()) {

         __monitor((void *)&current_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0);
         smp_mb();
         if (!need_resched())
             __mwait(eax, ecx);
     }

     start_critical_timings();

     kt_after = ktime_get_real();


Where we're basically timing how long we were in idle for.

So I think the problem is just misreading the trace output.

thanks
-john




--
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/