[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201125123534.GA28684@yuki.lan>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:35:34 +0100
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] syscalls: avoid time() using __cvdso_gettimeofday in
use-level's VDSO
Hi!
> This is a general problem and not really just for this particular test
> case.
>
> Due to the internal implementation of ktime_get_real_seconds(), which is
> a 2038 safe replacement for the former get_seconds() function, this
> accumulation issue can be observed. (time(2) via syscall and newer
> versions of VDSO use the same mechanism).
>
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
> sec = time();
> assert(sec >= ts.tv_sec);
>
> That assert can trigger for two reasons:
>
> 1) Clock was set between the clock_gettime() and time().
>
> 2) The clock has advanced far enough that:
>
> timekeeper.tv_nsec + (clock_now_ns() - last_update_ns) > NSEC_PER_SEC
>
> #1 is just a property of clock REALTIME. There is nothing we can do
> about that.
>
> #2 is due to the optimized get_seconds()/time() access which avoids to
> read the clock. This can happen on bare metal as well, but is far
> more likely to be exposed on virt.
>
> The same problem exists for CLOCK_XXX vs. CLOCK_XXX_COARSE
>
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_XXX, &ts);
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_XXX_COARSE, &tc);
> assert(tc.tv_sec >= ts.tv_sec);
>
> The _COARSE variants return their associated timekeeper.tv_sec,tv_nsec
> pair without reading the clock. Same as #2 above just extended to clock
> MONOTONIC.
Good hint, I guess that easiest fix would be to switch to coarse timers
for these tests.
> There is no way to fix this except giving up on the fast accessors and
> make everything take the slow path and read the clock, which might make
> a lot of people unhappy.
That's understandable and reasonable. Thanks a lot for the confirmation.
> For clock REALTIME #1 is anyway an issue, so I think documenting this
> proper is the right thing to do.
>
> Thoughts?
I guess that ideally BUGS section for time(2) and clock_gettime(2)
should be updated with this explanation.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@...e.cz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists