[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230125002730.1471349-3-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:27:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
sboyd@...nel.org, corbet@....net, Mark.Rutland@....com,
maz@...nel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, neeraju@...eaurora.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, feng.tang@...el.com, zhengjun.xing@...el.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 clocksource 3/7] clocksource: Improve read-back-delay message
When cs_watchdog_read() is unable to get a qualifying clocksource read
within the limit set by max_cswd_read_retries, it prints a message
and marks the clocksource under test as unstable. But that message is
unclear to anyone unfamiliar with the code:
clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: wd-tsc-wd read-back delay 1000614ns, attempt 3, marking unstable
Therefore, add some context so that the message appears as follows:
clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: wd-tsc-wd excessive read-back delay of 1000614ns vs. limit of 125000ns, wd-wd read-back delay only 27ns, attempt 3, marking tsc unstable
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
---
kernel/time/clocksource.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
index a3d19f6660ac7..b59914953809f 100644
--- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
+++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
@@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ static enum wd_read_status cs_watchdog_read(struct clocksource *cs, u64 *csnow,
goto skip_test;
}
- pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: wd-%s-wd read-back delay of %lldns, attempt %d, marking unstable\n",
- smp_processor_id(), cs->name, wd_delay, nretries);
+ pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: wd-%s-wd excessive read-back delay of %lldns vs. limit of %ldns, wd-wd read-back delay only %lldns, attempt %d, marking %s unstable\n",
+ smp_processor_id(), cs->name, wd_delay, WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW, wd_seq_delay, nretries, cs->name);
return WD_READ_UNSTABLE;
skip_test:
--
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
Powered by blists - more mailing lists