[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86521835-f13f-4d43-9a38-9a55abae0b89@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:04:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
sboyd@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: skew message does not handle negative ns skew
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 09:52:11PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:09:08PM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 13:50, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > And I'm have no idea if there is a real hardware/firmware issue
> > > or just a false alarm.
> >
> > Is a negative reported skew valid? I don't know, I had assumed so, so
> > the problem was the conversion from -878159 ns to 18446744073708 ms.
>
> I think it's valid. The related code is from kernel/time/clocksource.c:
>
> "
> cs_wd_msec = div_u64_rem(cs_nsec - wd_nsec, 1000U * 1000U, &wd_rem);
> wd_msec = div_u64_rem(wd_nsec, 1000U * 1000U, &wd_rem);
> pr_warn(" Clocksource '%s' skewed %lld ns (%lld ms) over watchdog '%s' interval of %lld ns (%lld ms)\n",
> cs->name, cs_nsec - wd_nsec, cs_wd_msec, watchdog->name, wd_nsec, wd_msec);
> "
>
> The negative value just means the watchdog is running faster than
> TSC in the 512 ms checking interval. The 18446744073708 ms is just
> a conversion from s64 value in ns (-878159) to a u64 ns, then a
> u64 ms.
That is a bit user-unfriendly. Does the following fix address this
issue at your end?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 8eb836f2dd44cb1e80dfc603cf47c03603dadcdb
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Date: Wed Jun 7 11:59:49 2023 -0700
clocksource: Handle negative skews in "skew is too large" messages
The nanosecond-to-millisecond skew computation uses unsigned arithmetic,
which produces user-unfriendly large positive numbers for negative skews.
Therefore, use signed arithmetic for this computation in order to preserve
the negativity.
Reported-by: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@...il.com>
Reported-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Fixes: dd029269947a ("clocksource: Improve "skew is too large" messages")
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
index 91836b727cef..0600e16dbafe 100644
--- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
+++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
@@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
/* Check the deviation from the watchdog clocksource. */
md = cs->uncertainty_margin + watchdog->uncertainty_margin;
if (abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > md) {
- u64 cs_wd_msec;
- u64 wd_msec;
+ s64 cs_wd_msec;
+ s64 wd_msec;
u32 wd_rem;
pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Marking clocksource '%s' as unstable because the skew is too large:\n",
@@ -483,8 +483,8 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
watchdog->name, wd_nsec, wdnow, wdlast, watchdog->mask);
pr_warn(" '%s' cs_nsec: %lld cs_now: %llx cs_last: %llx mask: %llx\n",
cs->name, cs_nsec, csnow, cslast, cs->mask);
- cs_wd_msec = div_u64_rem(cs_nsec - wd_nsec, 1000U * 1000U, &wd_rem);
- wd_msec = div_u64_rem(wd_nsec, 1000U * 1000U, &wd_rem);
+ cs_wd_msec = div_s64_rem(cs_nsec - wd_nsec, 1000 * 1000, &wd_rem);
+ wd_msec = div_s64_rem(wd_nsec, 1000 * 1000, &wd_rem);
pr_warn(" Clocksource '%s' skewed %lld ns (%lld ms) over watchdog '%s' interval of %lld ns (%lld ms)\n",
cs->name, cs_nsec - wd_nsec, cs_wd_msec, watchdog->name, wd_nsec, wd_msec);
if (curr_clocksource == cs)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists