[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140714094558.GN9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:45:58 +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 Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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? ;-)
>
> It can in theory, but does it really matter for tracing?
Not so much; but I think the interfaces aren't quite as explicit as they
maybe should be about this.
> > 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.
>
> Well, bad luck then. You end up using hpet or worse, but it's still
> your decision whether to base your instrumentation on that or not. For
> sane clock sources (i.e. almost anything except TSC) it works
> perfectly fine.
So I can imagine clock sources themselves not being NMI safe on a
hardware level. But also, I'm fairly sure you do not want HPET reads in
a function tracer :-)
And I absolutely detest this configurability muck. I want a single
'clock'.
But yes, we can do what you suggested, we can do something like:
if (tsc-stable)
return nmi-mono
else
return sched_clock
Seeing how with tsc-unstable the sched_clock muck is synched to clock
monotonic.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists