Message-ID: <ef61060d-9f40-4b44-9a51-026041fe75e1@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Sun, 2 Apr 2023 19:00:48 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A couple of TSC questions

On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:04:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> On 3/31/23 13:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 02:58:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:19:54AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:47:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:14:48PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > > > > > > Second, we are very occasionally running into console messages like this:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Measured 2 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This comes from check_tsc_sync_source() and indicates that one CPU's
> > > > > > > TSC read produced a later time than a later read from some other CPU.
> > > > > > > I am beginning to suspect that these can be caused by unscheduled delays
> > > > > > > in the TSC synchronization code, but figured I should ask you if you have
> > > > > > > ever seen these.  And of course, if so, what the usual causes might be.
> > > > > > I haven't seen this error myself or got similar reports. Usually it
> > > > > > should be easy to detect once happened, as falling back to HPET
> > > > > > will trigger obvious performance degradation.
> > > > > And that is exactly what happened.  ;-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Could you give more detail about when and how it happens, and the
> > > > > > HW info like how many sockets the platform has.
> > > > > We are in early days, so I am checking for other experiences.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > CC Thomas, Waiman, as they discussed simliar case here:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87h76ew3sb.ffs@tglx/T/#md4d0a88fb708391654e78312ffa75b481690699f
> > > > > Fun!  ;-)
> > > Waiman, do you recall what fraction of the benefit was provided by the
> > > first patch, that is, the one that grouped the sync_lock, last_tsc,
> > > max_warp, nr_warps, and random_warps global variables into a single
> > > struct?
> 
> The purpose of the first patch is just to avoid false cacheline sharing
> between the watchdog cpu and another cpu that happens to access a nearby
> data in the same cacheline.
> 
> Now I realize that I should have followed up with this patch series. The
> problem reported in that patch series happen on one system only, I believe.

Thus far I am seeing eight systems, but out of a large number.  So this
is very much preliminary.

> > And what we are seeing is unlikely to be due to cache-latency-induced
> > delays.  We see a very precise warp, for example, one system always
> > has 182 cycles of TSC warp, another 273 cycles, and a third 469 cycles.
> > Another is at the insanely large value of about 2^64/10, and shows some
> > variation, but that variation is only about 0.1%.
> > 
> > But any given system only sees warp on about half of its reboots.
> > Perhaps due to the automation sometimes power cycling?
> > 
> > There are few enough affected systems that investigation will take
> > some time.
> 
> Maybe the difference in wrap is due to NUMA distance of the running cpu from
> the node where the data reside. It will be interesting to see if my patch
> helps.

Almost all of them are single-socket systems.

If the problem sticks with a few systems, I should be able to test
patches no problem.  If it is randomly distributed across the fleet, a
bit more prework analysis will be called for.  But what is life without
a challenge?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists