linux-kernel - Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second (was [v13] support "task

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: <f7553d2a-f4ab-b218-bb93-fcb436db1770@mellanox.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:06:08 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"Daniel Lezcano" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second
 (was [v13] support "task_isolation" mode)

On 7/27/2016 11:31 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Ok here is a possible patch that explicitly checks for housekeeping cpus:
>
> Subject: clocksource: Do not schedule watchdog on isolated or NOHZ cpus
>
> watchdog checks can only run on housekeeping capable cpus. Otherwise
> we will be generating noise that we would like to avoid on the isolated
> processors.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>
> Index: linux/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/time/clocksource.c	2016-07-27 08:41:17.109862517 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/time/clocksource.c	2016-07-27 10:28:31.172447732 -0500
> @@ -269,9 +269,12 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(unsigne
>   	 * Cycle through CPUs to check if the CPUs stay synchronized
>   	 * to each other.
>   	 */
> -	next_cpu = cpumask_next(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask);
> -	if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> -		next_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> +	do {
> +		next_cpu = cpumask_next(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask);
> +		if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> +			next_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> +	} while (!is_housekeeping_cpu(next_cpu));
> +
>   	watchdog_timer.expires += WATCHDOG_INTERVAL;
>   	add_timer_on(&watchdog_timer, next_cpu);
>   out:

How about using cpumask_next_and(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask,
housekeeping_cpumask()), likewise cpumask_first_and()?  Does that work?

Note that you should also  cpumask_first_and() in clocksource_start_watchdog(),
just to be complete.

Hopefully the init code runs after tick_init().  It seems like that's probably true.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com