Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:16:06 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan
	<tariqt@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Richard Cochran
	<richardcochran@...il.com>, Vincent Cheng <vincent.cheng.xh@...esas.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 7/9] ptp: ptp_clockmatrix: Add .getmaxphase
 ptp_clock_info callback



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 12:48 PM
> To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Keller,
> Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>; Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>; Tariq
> Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>; Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>; Richard
> Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>; Vincent Cheng
> <vincent.cheng.xh@...esas.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/9] ptp: ptp_clockmatrix: Add .getmaxphase
> ptp_clock_info callback
> 
> On Fri, 09 Jun, 2023 08:38:11 +0200 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm sorry for the late reply. This fell under my radar.
> >
> > On Thu, 2023-05-25 at 11:09 -0700, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 May, 2023 14:11:51 +0200 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2023-05-25 at 14:08 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_clockmatrix.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_clockmatrix.c
> >> > > > index c9d451bf89e2..f6f9d4adce04 100644
> >> > > > --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_clockmatrix.c
> >> > > > +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_clockmatrix.c
> >> > > > @@ -1692,14 +1692,23 @@ static int
> initialize_dco_operating_mode(struct idtcm_channel *channel)
> >> > > >  /* PTP Hardware Clock interface */
> >> > > >
> >> > > >  /*
> >> > > > - * Maximum absolute value for write phase offset in picoseconds
> >> > > > - *
> >> > > > - * @channel:  channel
> >> > > > - * @delta_ns: delta in nanoseconds
> >> > > > + * Maximum absolute value for write phase offset in nanoseconds
> >> > > >   *
> >> > > >   * Destination signed register is 32-bit register in resolution of 50ps
> >> > > >   *
> >> > > > - * 0x7fffffff * 50 =  2147483647 * 50 = 107374182350
> >> > > > + * 0x7fffffff * 50 =  2147483647 * 50 = 107374182350 ps
> >> > > > + * Represent 107374182350 ps as 107374182 ns
> >> > > > + */
> >> > > > +static s32 idtcm_getmaxphase(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp
> __always_unused)
> >> > > > +{
> >> > > > +	return MAX_ABS_WRITE_PHASE_NANOSECONDS;
> >> > > > +}
> >> > >
> >> > > This introduces a functional change WRT the current code. Prior to this
> >> > > patch ClockMatrix tries to adjust phase delta even above
> >> > > MAX_ABS_WRITE_PHASE_NANOSECONDS, limiting the delta to such value.
> >> > > After this patch it will error out.
> >>
> >> My understanding is the syscall for adjphase, clock_adjtime, cannot
> >> represent an offset granularity smaller than nanoseconds using the
> >> struct timex offset member.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >> To me, it seems that adjusting a delta above
> >> MAX_ABS_WRITE_PHASE_NANOSECONDS (due to support for higher precision
> >> units by the device), while supported by the device driver, would not be
> >> a capability utilized by any interface that would invoke the .adjphase
> >> callback implemented by ClockMatrix.
> 
> I see I caused some confusion in terms of what I was focused on with
> this response. My main concern here was still about supporting precision
> units higher than nanoseconds. For example if a device was capable of
> supporting 107374182350 picoseconds for ADJ_OFFSET, it doesn't matter
> whether the driver advertises 107374182 nanoseconds as the maximum
> adjustment capability versus 107374182350 picoseconds even though
> 107374182 nanoseconds < 107374182350 picoseconds because the granularity
> of the parameter for the adjphase callback is in nanoseconds. I think we
> have converged on this topic but not the other point you brought up.
> 
> >
> > Here I don't follow. I must admit I know the ptp subsystem very little,
> > but AFAICS, we could have e.g.
> >
> > clock_adjtime() // offset > 200 secs (200000000 usec)
> >  -> do_clock_adjtime
> >     -> kc->clock_adj
> >        -> clock_posix_dynamic
> >           -> pc_clock_adjtime
> >              -> ptp_clock_adjtime
> >                 -> _idtcm_adjphase // delta land unmodified up here
> >
> > I guess the user-space could pass such large delta (e.g. at boot
> > time?!?). If so, with this patch we change an user-space observable
> > behavior, and I think we should avoid that.
> 
> The point that you bring up here is about clamping (which is done by
> idtcm_adjphase previously) versus throwing an error when out of range
> (what is now done in ptp_clock_adjtime in this patch series). This was
> something I was struggling with deciding on a unified behavior across
> all drivers. For example, the mlx5_core driver chooses to return -ERANGE
> when the delta landed on it is out of the range supported by the PHC of
> the device. We chose to return an error because there was no mechanism
> previously for the userspace to know what was the supported offset when
> using ADJ_OFFSET with different PHC devices. If a user provides an
> offset and no error is returned, the user would assume that offset had
> been applied (there was no way to know that it was clamped from the
> userspace). This patch series now adds the query for maximum supported
> offset in the PTP_CLOCK_GETCAPS ioctl. In my opinion, I think we will
> see an userspace observable behavior change either way unfortunately due
> to the inconsistency among device drivers, which was one of the main
> issues this patch submission targets. I am ok with making the common
> behavior in ptp_clock_adjtime clamp the provided offset value instead of
> throwing an error when out of range. In both cases, userspace programs
> can handle the out-of-range case explicitly with a check against the
> maximum offset value now advertised in PTP_CLOCK_GETCAPS. My personal
> opinion is that since we have this inconsistency among device drivers
> for handling out of range offsets that are currently provided as-is to
> the driver-specific callback implementations, it makes sense to converge
> to a version that returns an error when the userspace provides
> out-of-range values rather than silently clamping these values. However,
> I am open to either version as long as we have consistency and do not
> leave this up to individual device-drivers to dictate since this adds
> further complexity in the userspace when working with this syscall.
> 

I'm in favor of throwing an error, since userspace that *doesn't* check for the max value and assumes it will apply without a clamp may be surprised when it starts clamping. Userspace which previously supplied a large value and it clamps now gets an error, which might be concerning, but they got driver defined behavior before, where it might error or it might clamp, so I think we're in a no-win scenario there.

I don't really see the value in clamping because that makes it hard to tell if an update was fully applied or not. Now software has to know to check the range in advance. I wouldn't view a partially applied update as a successful behavior in a timing application. Thus, on the principle of least surprise I would avoid clamping. I'm open to other opinions, and I think standardizing is much better than letting it be driver behavior.


> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paolo
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rahul Rameshbabu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists