All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 tsc: remove xtime_lock'ing around cpufreq notifier
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:33:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070411143357.e866b366.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1176324881.20237.39.camel@imap.mvista.com>

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:54:41 -0700
Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 13:31 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:29:04 -0700
> > Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The locking of the xtime_lock around the cpu notifier is unessesary now. At one
> > > time the tsc was used after a frequency change for timekeeping, but the re-write
> > > of timekeeping no longer uses the TSC unless the frequency is constant. 
> > > 
> > > The variables that are changed in this section of code had also once been used
> > > for timekeeping, but not any longer ..
> > > 
> > > Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c |    8 +-------
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6.20/arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.20.orig/arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6.20/arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
> > > @@ -200,13 +200,10 @@ time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_bl
> > >  {
> > >  	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > >  
> > > -	if (val != CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE && val != CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE)
> > > -		write_seqlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
> > > -
> > >  	if (!ref_freq) {
> > >  		if (!freq->old){
> > >  			ref_freq = freq->new;
> > > -			goto end;
> > > +			return 0;
> > >  		}
> > >  		ref_freq = freq->old;
> > >  		loops_per_jiffy_ref = cpu_data[freq->cpu].loops_per_jiffy;
> > > @@ -237,9 +234,6 @@ time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_bl
> > >  			}
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > > -end:
> > > -	if (val != CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE && val != CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE)
> > > -		write_sequnlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
> > >  
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > 
> > hm.
> > 
> > I've been permadropping Andi's
> > ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt-current/patches/sched-clock-share
> > because it causes a lockup when initscripts start ondemand on my
> > single-CPU, CONFIG_SMP=n Vaio.
> > 
> > I don't know _why_ it locks up - I traced it down to the
> > write_seqlock_irq() which you have just removed.  But write_seqlock()
> > doesn't loop with CONFIG_SMP=n builds, so a hang there is quite mysterious.
> > 
> > Anyway, your patch might make that hang go away.  We'll see.
> 
> 
> I don't know to what extent this is relevant, but it's something I've
> noticed ..
> 
> >From the patch above ,
> 
> + */
> +unsigned long long sched_clock(void)
> +{
> +	int cpu = get_cpu();
> +	struct sc_data *sc = &per_cpu(sc_data, cpu);
> +	unsigned long long r;
> +
> +	if (sc->instable) {
> +		/* TBD find a cheaper fallback timer than this */
> +		r = ktime_to_ns(ktime_get());
> +	} else {
> +		get_scheduled_cycles(r);
> +		r = ((u64)sc->ns_base) + cycles_2_ns(cpu, r - sc->last_tsc);
> +	}
> +	put_cpu();
> +	return r;
> +}
> 
> Your VAIO is the "instable" case above I think .. So your using a case
> that needs to be implemented still , I guess .. ktime_get() has a
> peculiarity of recursively looping on the read seqlock on xtime_lock ..
> 
> Here is the call ordering ,
> 
> ktime_get()
>  ktime_get_ts() -> read_seqretry(&xtime_lock, seq)
>   getnstimeofday()
>    __get_realtime_clock_ts() -> read_seqretry(&xtime_lock, seq)
> 
> 
> I wonder if there is a weird case which case this to loop forever .. But
> as said , it's just something I noticed so I don't know if it's
> related .
> 

hm.

Bear in mind that printk calls sched_clock() for each line of output. 
(with the "time" kernel boot parameter).

If we're doing a read_seqretry() in sched_clock() then bascially any printk
inside the write_seqlock() will cause a lockup.

So in fact, this explains my hang: I was debugging it with printk and I
noticed that the printk before the write_seqlock() came out and the one
after it did not.  Presumably if I wasn't using "time", that hang wouldn't
have happened.

Which means that I still don't have a clue why Andi's patch is locking up
the Vaio.

It's a bad idea to make sched_clock() this complex - we've gone and
degraded kernel debuggability somewhat.

We have provision for fixing this: the architecture can provide its own
printk_clock().  We should do something quick-n-dirty in printk_clock()
which doesn't require any locks.


  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-11 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-11 16:29 [PATCH] i386 tsc: remove xtime_lock'ing around cpufreq notifier Daniel Walker
2007-04-11 20:31 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-11 20:54   ` Daniel Walker
2007-04-11 21:33     ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-04-12  0:39       ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-12  9:36         ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 16:23           ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-12 16:45             ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 17:00               ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-12 17:43                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-12 17:46                   ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 17:52                   ` Daniel Walker
2007-04-12 17:55                   ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-12 18:27                     ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 19:41                       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-12 19:43                     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-12 17:41               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-12 17:45                 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 19:46                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-12 20:15                     ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-12 17:17         ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070411143357.e866b366.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.