public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox