From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Hartsock <hartsjc@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nohz: Fix collision between tick and other hrtimers
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170105114935.GK3093@worktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483539124-5693-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:12:04PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When the tick is stopped and an interrupt occurs afterward, we check on
> that interrupt exit if the next tick needs to be rescheduled. If it
> doesn't need any update, we don't want to do anything.
>
> In order to check if the tick needs an update, we compare it against the
> clockevent device deadline. Now that's a problem because the clockevent
> device is at a lower level than the tick itself if it is implemented
> on top of hrtimer.
>
> Every hrtimer share this clockevent device. So comparing the next tick
> deadline against the clockevent device deadline is wrong because the
> device may be programmed for another hrtimer whose deadline collides
> with the tick. As a result we may end up not reprogramming the tick
> accidentally.
>
> In a worst case scenario under full dynticks mode, the tick stops firing
> as it is supposed to every 1hz, leaving /proc/stat stalled:
>
> Task in a full dynticks CPU
> ----------------------------
>
> * hrtimer A is queued 2 seconds ahead
> * the tick is stopped, scheduled 1 second ahead
> * tick fires 1 second later
> * on tick exit, nohz schedules the tick 1 second ahead but sees
> the clockevent device is already programmed to that deadline,
> fooled by hrtimer A, the tick isn't rescheduled.
> * hrtimer A is cancelled before its deadline
> * tick never fires again until an interrupt happens...
>
> In order to fix this, store the next tick deadline to the tick_sched
> local structure and reuse that value later to check whether we need to
> reprogram the clock after an interrupt.
>
> On the other hand, ts->sleep_length still wants to know about the next
> clock event and not just the tick, so we want to improve the related
> comment to avoid confusion.
>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
> Reported-by: James Hartsock <hartsjc@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-05 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-04 14:12 [PATCH v2] nohz: Fix collision between tick and other hrtimers Frederic Weisbecker
2017-01-05 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-01-11 9:46 ` [tip:timers/urgent] " tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker
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=20170105114935.GK3093@worktop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hartsjc@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.com \
/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