[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140714083753.GK9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:37:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 54/55] timekeeping: Provide fast and NMI safe access to
CLOCK_MONOTONIC[_RAW]
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:45:19PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Tracers want a correlated time between the kernel instrumentation and
> user space. We really do not want to export sched_clock() to user
> space, so we need to provide something sensible for this.
>
> Using separate data structures with an non blocking sequence count
> based update mechanism allows us to do that. The data structure
> required for the readout has a sequence counter and two copies of the
> timekeeping data.
>
> On the update side:
>
> tkf->seq++;
> smp_wmb();
> update(tkf->base[0], tk;
> tkf->seq++;
> smp_wmb();
> update(tkf->base[1], tk;
>
> On the reader side:
>
> do {
> seq = tkf->seq;
> smp_rmb();
> idx = seq & 0x01;
> now = now(tkf->base[idx]);
> smp_rmb();
> } while (seq != tkf->seq)
>
> So if NMI hits the update of base[0] it will use base[1] which is
> still consistent. In case of CLOCK_MONOTONIC this can result in
> slightly wrong timestamps (a few nanoseconds) accross an update. Not a
> big issue for the intended use case.
But it breaks monotonicity, right? ;-)
Also, what happens when TSC is not available as a clocksource? There's
still a metric ton of hardware (including the latest generation HSW)
that has fucked firmware/TSC.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists