linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] clocksource: Suspend the watchdog temporarily when high read lantency detected

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:00:42 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] clocksource: Suspend the watchdog temporarily when
 high read lantency detected

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:55:15PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:39:53PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 12/21/22 19:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > commit 199dfa2ba23dd0d650b1482a091e2e15457698b7
> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney<paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > Date:   Wed Dec 21 16:20:25 2022 -0800
> > > 
> > >      clocksource: Verify HPET and PMTMR when TSC unverified
> > >      On systems with two or fewer sockets, when the boot CPU has CONSTANT_TSC,
> > >      NONSTOP_TSC, and TSC_ADJUST, clocksource watchdog verification of the
> > >      TSC is disabled.  This works well much of the time, but there is the
> > >      occasional system that meets all of these criteria, but which still
> > >      has a TSC that skews significantly from atomic-clock time.  This is
> > >      usually attributed to a firmware or hardware fault.  Yes, the various
> > >      NTP daemons do express their opinions of userspace-to-atomic-clock time
> > >      skew, but they put them in various places, depending on the daemon and
> > >      distro in question.  It would therefore be good for the kernel to have
> > >      some clue that there is a problem.
> > >      The old behavior of marking the TSC unstable is a non-starter because a
> > >      great many workloads simply cannot tolerate the overheads and latencies
> > >      of the various non-TSC clocksources.  In addition, NTP-corrected systems
> > >      often seem to be able to tolerate significant kernel-space time skew as
> > >      long as the userspace time sources are within epsilon of atomic-clock
> > >      time.
> > >      Therefore, when watchdog verification of TSC is disabled, enable it for
> > >      HPET and PMTMR (AKA ACPI PM timer).  This provides the needed in-kernel
> > >      time-skew diagnostic without degrading the system's performance.
> > >      Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney<paulmck@...nel.org>
> > >      Cc: Thomas Gleixner<tglx@...utronix.de>
> > >      Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...hat.com>
> > >      Cc: Borislav Petkov<bp@...en8.de>
> > >      Cc: Dave Hansen<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > >      Cc: "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@...or.com>
> > >      Cc: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> > >      Cc: Feng Tang<feng.tang@...el.com>
> > >      Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com
> > >      Cc:<x86@...nel.org>
> > 
> > As I currently understand, you are trying to use TSC as a watchdog to check
> > against HPET and PMTMR. I do have 2 questions about this patch.
> > 
> > First of all, why you need to use both HPET and PMTMR? Can you just use one
> > of those that are available. Secondly, is it possible to enable this
> > time-skew diagnostic for a limit amount of time instead running
> > indefinitely? The running of the clocksource watchdog itself will still
> > consume a tiny amount of CPU cycles.
> 
> I could certainly do something so that only the first of HPET and PMTMR
> is checked.  Could you give me a quick run-through of the advantages of
> using only one?  I would need to explain that in the commit log.
> 
> Would it make sense to have a kernel boot variable giving the number of
> minutes for which the watchdog was to run, with a default of zero
> meaning "indefinitely"?

We've discussed about the "os noise", which customer may really care.
IIUC, this patch intends to test if HPET/PMTIMER HW is broken, so how
about making it run for a number of minutes the default behavior.   

Also I've run the patch on a Alderlake system, with a fine acpi pm_timer
and a fake broken pm_timer, and they both works without errors.

Thanks,
Feng

> 							Thanx, Paul