[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240104163050.GC3303@incl>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:30:50 +0100
From: Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@...e.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Skip watchdog check for large watchdog
intervals
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:08:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I believe that there were concerns about a similar approach in the case
> where the jiffies counter is the clocksource
I ran a few simple tests on a 2 NUMA node Intel machine and found nothing
so far. I tried booting with clocksource=jiffies and I changed the
"nr_online_nodes <= 4" check in tsc_clocksource_as_watchdog() to enable
the watchdog on my machine. I have a debugging module that monitors
clocksource and watchdog reads in clocksource_watchdog() with kprobes. I
see the cs/wd reads executed roughly every 0.5 second, as expected. When
the machine is idle the average watchdog interval is 501.61 milliseconds
(+-15.57 ms, with a minimum of 477.07 ms and a maximum of 517.93 ms). The
result is similar when the CPUs of the machine are fully saturated with
netperf processes. I also tried booting with clocksource=jiffies and
tsc=watchdog. The watchdog interval was similar to the previous test.
AFAIK, the jiffies clocksource does get checked by the watchdog itself.
And with that, I have run out of ideas.
--
Jiri Wiesner
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists