Re: WARNING: Adjusting tsc more then 11%

[John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 15:28 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:24:37PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > Ok. Well, just to level set: the warning is informative, and points to
> > > > unexpected, but not necessarily unsafe behavior.
> > > > 
> > > > In fact, the risk (where mult is adjusted to be large enough to cause an
> > > > overflow) we're warning about have been present 2.6.36 or even possibly
> > > > before. The change in 3.2 which added the warning also added a more
> > > > conservative mult calculation, so we're less likely to get overflow
> > > > prone large mult values.
> > > 
> > > Is there a reason you decided to use a WARN_ONCE, which dumps a full stack
> > > trace, instead of just printk(KERN_ERR ?
> > 
> > Well, the WARN_ONCE behavior is really nice, since just a printk would
> > end up possibly filling the logs, since you might get one every tick.
> 
> We have printk_once too.

Good point.  I didn't look into that. The backtrace isn't very useful,
so I'll see about changing it in the future.

> > > > So it would be great to get further feedback from folks who are seeing
> > > > this warning, so we can really hammer this out, but I don't want the
> > > > warning spooking anyone into thinking things are terribly broken.
> > > 
> > > Right... people see backtraces and start thinking "my kernel is broken."
> > > 
> > > I'm certainly not meaning to pick on you for this.  Lately it seems all
> > > the rage to throw WARN_ONs for all kinds of error paths and leave the user
> > > to figure out how screwed they are.
> > 
> > Its a trade-off, since we really do want to know if our code has been
> > pushed outside of its expected boundaries (either by unexpected hadware
> > behavior or by expectations being raised, like long nohz idle times), so
> > we have to get folks attention somewhat. The type of error reporting
> > Dave's managed to collect here is really great.
> 
> It is, yes.  Do you know, aside from distro kernel maintainers, how many
> reports have you gotten from actual users directly?

Zero so far. Dave's are the first that I've been made aware of.

> > But at the same time, I agree there has been a few cases where the code
> > is limited more narrowly then the reality of existing hardware, and we
> > end up with a constant stream of error messages that get waved off as
> > broken hardware.
> > 
> > There we need to either fix the code or drop the warnings, but I think
> > it gets hard when we really want to know about "unexpected behavior,
> > except on some wide swath of hardware that always acts poorly", where
> > conditionalizing the warnings isn't easy.
> 
> Oh my.  Quirks in the timekeeping code would just give me nightmares ;).

:)
-john