* strange timestamp in dmesg
@ 2008-06-05 11:54 Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-06-06 10:19 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Denys Fedoryshchenko @ 2008-06-05 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I notice that timestamp shifting back in dmesg.
Probably it is because machine is dual CPU opteron. I am not sure that such
behaviour is good, and i think even dangerous, and maybe affect something else.
Here is dmesg example
[ 7.065265] sky2 eth1: enabling interface
[ 7.093844] nf_conntrack version 0.5.0 (16384 buckets, 65536 max)
[ 8.308842] Fusion MPT base driver 3.04.06
[ 8.308850] Copyright (c) 1999-2007 LSI Corporation
[ 7.719943] Fusion MPT SAS Host driver 3.04.06
[ 7.773135] Fusion MPT SPI Host driver 3.04.06
[ 7.773196] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:05.0[A] -> GSI 26 (level, low) ->
IRQ 26
[ 7.773233] mptbase: ioc0: Initiating bringup
[ 7.983821] ioc0: LSI53C1020A A1: Capabilities={Initiator}
[ 8.051145] scsi1 : ioc0: LSI53C1020A A1, FwRev=01032700h, Ports=1,
MaxQ=222, IRQ=26
[ 9.730853] scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST373207LW 0004
PQ: 0 ANSI: 3
[ 9.730853] target1:0:0: Beginning Domain Validation
[ 9.690641] target1:0:0: Ending Domain Validation
[ 10.586005] target1:0:0: FAST-160 WIDE SCSI 320.0 MB/s DT IU QAS RTI
WRFLOW PCOMP (6.25 ns, offset 63)
[ 9.622284] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
[ 9.624360] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[ 9.624360] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
[ 9.695636] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
supports DPO and FUA
[ 9.759418] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
[ 9.630037] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[ 9.630037] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
[ 9.700212] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
supports DPO and FUA
[ 9.700212] sdb: sdb1 sdb2
[ 9.769373] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
[ 9.774370] scsi 1:0:1:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST373207LW 0004
PQ: 0 ANSI: 3
[ 9.774393] target1:0:1: Beginning Domain Validation
[ 9.733244] target1:0:1: Ending Domain Validation
[ 9.733289] target1:0:1: FAST-160 WIDE SCSI 320.0 MB/s DT IU QAS RTI
WRFLOW PCOMP (6.25 ns, offset 63)
[ 10.631379] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
[ 10.632811] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
[ 10.632819] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
[ 9.671056] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
supports DPO and FUA
[ 9.801761] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
[ 9.673388] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
[ 9.673395] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
[ 9.806210] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
supports DPO and FUA
[ 9.806220] sdc: sdc1
[ 9.682136] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk
[ 13.786405] SGI XFS with large block numbers, no debug enabled
[ 13.633457] XFS mounting filesystem sdb2
[ 13.724345] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
[ 14.251356] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
[ 15.379298] XFS mounting filesystem sdc1
[ 15.468255] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
[ 14.514314] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
[ 14.767260] warning: `squid' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use)
[ 17.589751] e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full
Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX
--
Denys Fedoryshchenko
Technical Manager
Virtual ISP S.A.L.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: strange timestamp in dmesg
2008-06-05 11:54 strange timestamp in dmesg Denys Fedoryshchenko
@ 2008-06-06 10:19 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-06 13:49 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2008-06-06 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Denys Fedoryshchenko; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:54:07 +0300 "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@visp.net.lb> wrote:
> I notice that timestamp shifting back in dmesg.
> Probably it is because machine is dual CPU opteron. I am not sure that such
> behaviour is good, and i think even dangerous, and maybe affect something else.
>
>
> Here is dmesg example
> [ 7.065265] sky2 eth1: enabling interface
> [ 7.093844] nf_conntrack version 0.5.0 (16384 buckets, 65536 max)
> [ 8.308842] Fusion MPT base driver 3.04.06
> [ 8.308850] Copyright (c) 1999-2007 LSI Corporation
> [ 7.719943] Fusion MPT SAS Host driver 3.04.06
> [ 7.773135] Fusion MPT SPI Host driver 3.04.06
> [ 7.773196] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:05.0[A] -> GSI 26 (level, low) ->
> IRQ 26
> [ 7.773233] mptbase: ioc0: Initiating bringup
> [ 7.983821] ioc0: LSI53C1020A A1: Capabilities={Initiator}
> [ 8.051145] scsi1 : ioc0: LSI53C1020A A1, FwRev=01032700h, Ports=1,
> MaxQ=222, IRQ=26
> [ 9.730853] scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST373207LW 0004
> PQ: 0 ANSI: 3
> [ 9.730853] target1:0:0: Beginning Domain Validation
> [ 9.690641] target1:0:0: Ending Domain Validation
> [ 10.586005] target1:0:0: FAST-160 WIDE SCSI 320.0 MB/s DT IU QAS RTI
> WRFLOW PCOMP (6.25 ns, offset 63)
> [ 9.622284] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
> [ 9.624360] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
> [ 9.624360] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
> [ 9.695636] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
> supports DPO and FUA
> [ 9.759418] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
> [ 9.630037] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
> [ 9.630037] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
> [ 9.700212] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
> supports DPO and FUA
> [ 9.700212] sdb: sdb1 sdb2
> [ 9.769373] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
> [ 9.774370] scsi 1:0:1:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST373207LW 0004
> PQ: 0 ANSI: 3
> [ 9.774393] target1:0:1: Beginning Domain Validation
> [ 9.733244] target1:0:1: Ending Domain Validation
> [ 9.733289] target1:0:1: FAST-160 WIDE SCSI 320.0 MB/s DT IU QAS RTI
> WRFLOW PCOMP (6.25 ns, offset 63)
> [ 10.631379] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
> [ 10.632811] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
> [ 10.632819] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
> [ 9.671056] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
> supports DPO and FUA
> [ 9.801761] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
> [ 9.673388] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
> [ 9.673395] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
> [ 9.806210] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
> supports DPO and FUA
> [ 9.806220] sdc: sdc1
> [ 9.682136] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk
> [ 13.786405] SGI XFS with large block numbers, no debug enabled
> [ 13.633457] XFS mounting filesystem sdb2
> [ 13.724345] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
> [ 14.251356] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
> [ 15.379298] XFS mounting filesystem sdc1
> [ 15.468255] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
> [ 14.514314] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
> [ 14.767260] warning: `squid' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use)
> [ 17.589751] e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full
> Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX
>
whoa, that's weird. We've seen timestamps jump forward a single hop of
~100000 seconds, but that's all over the place.
Which kernel version is this, and in which kernel did it start happening?
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: strange timestamp in dmesg
2008-06-06 10:19 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2008-06-06 13:49 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-06 18:25 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2008-06-06 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Denys Fedoryshchenko, linux-kernel
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>> supports DPO and FUA
>> [ 9.801761] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
>> [ 9.673388] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
>> [ 9.673395] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
>> [ 9.806210] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
>> supports DPO and FUA
>> [ 9.806220] sdc: sdc1
>> [ 9.682136] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk
>> [ 13.786405] SGI XFS with large block numbers, no debug enabled
>> [ 13.633457] XFS mounting filesystem sdb2
>> [ 13.724345] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
>> [ 14.251356] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
>> [ 15.379298] XFS mounting filesystem sdc1
>> [ 15.468255] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
>> [ 14.514314] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
>> [ 14.767260] warning: `squid' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use)
>> [ 17.589751] e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full
>> Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX
>>
>
> whoa, that's weird. We've seen timestamps jump forward a single hop of
> ~100000 seconds, but that's all over the place.
No it's expected since printk uses sched_clock() and sched clock is not synchronous
between CPUs on systems without synchronized/invariant TSC (like Opteron)
All sched_clock() users are expected to handle it.
I always advocated just always using jiffies for printk. The only drawback would
be that it won't increase in interrupt off sections, but if you have
one that is longer than a jiffie then you have enough other problems.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: strange timestamp in dmesg
2008-06-06 13:49 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2008-06-06 18:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-06 18:40 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2008-06-06 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Denys Fedoryshchenko, linux-kernel
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:49:26 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> >> supports DPO and FUA
> >> [ 9.801761] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] 143374744 512-byte hardware sectors (73408 MB)
> >> [ 9.673388] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
> >> [ 9.673395] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: ab 00 10 08
> >> [ 9.806210] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,
> >> supports DPO and FUA
> >> [ 9.806220] sdc: sdc1
> >> [ 9.682136] sd 1:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk
> >> [ 13.786405] SGI XFS with large block numbers, no debug enabled
> >> [ 13.633457] XFS mounting filesystem sdb2
> >> [ 13.724345] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
> >> [ 14.251356] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdb2 (logdev: internal)
> >> [ 15.379298] XFS mounting filesystem sdc1
> >> [ 15.468255] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
> >> [ 14.514314] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sdc1 (logdev: internal)
> >> [ 14.767260] warning: `squid' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use)
> >> [ 17.589751] e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full
> >> Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX
> >>
> >
> > whoa, that's weird. We've seen timestamps jump forward a single hop of
> > ~100000 seconds, but that's all over the place.
>
> No it's expected since printk uses sched_clock() and sched clock is not synchronous
> between CPUs on systems without synchronized/invariant TSC (like Opteron)
> All sched_clock() users are expected to handle it.
We've seen a storm of hey-my-timestamps-went-weird reports in just the
past month or so. I don't recall it being (such) a problem before that.
Did we change something?
> I always advocated just always using jiffies for printk. The only drawback would
> be that it won't increase in interrupt off sections, but if you have
> one that is longer than a jiffie then you have enough other problems.
I forget why, but we _were_ going to have an (arch-overrideable)
printk_clock() function. And we still could. The x86 implementation
of that could fall back to jiffies if the TSCs are out of whack?
<googles>
In fact it looks like we _did_ have a printk_clock(), only someone stole it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: strange timestamp in dmesg
2008-06-06 18:25 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2008-06-06 18:40 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2008-06-06 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Andi Kleen, Denys Fedoryshchenko, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We've seen a storm of hey-my-timestamps-went-weird reports in just the
> past month or so. I don't recall it being (such) a problem before that.
>
> Did we change something
Nominally not, but who really knows with 5 digit number worth of changesets?
At least 64bit should have been always like this, but you only
see it on specific circumstances.
> > I always advocated just always using jiffies for printk. The only drawback would
> > be that it won't increase in interrupt off sections, but if you have
> > one that is longer than a jiffie then you have enough other problems.
>
> I forget why, but we _were_ going to have an (arch-overrideable)
> printk_clock() function. And we still could. The x86 implementation
> of that could fall back to jiffies if the TSCs are out of whack?
The rewritten sched_clock I used to plug, but which yielded about
zero interest, had one.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-06 18:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-06-05 11:54 strange timestamp in dmesg Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-06-06 10:19 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-06 13:49 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-06 18:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-06 18:40 ` Andi Kleen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox