From: Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@suse.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Skip watchdog check for large watchdog intervals
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:30:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240104163050.GC3303@incl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5b8fd9ba-1622-4ec7-b3cc-2db3a78122f1@paulmck-laptop>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:08:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I believe that there were concerns about a similar approach in the case
> where the jiffies counter is the clocksource
I ran a few simple tests on a 2 NUMA node Intel machine and found nothing
so far. I tried booting with clocksource=jiffies and I changed the
"nr_online_nodes <= 4" check in tsc_clocksource_as_watchdog() to enable
the watchdog on my machine. I have a debugging module that monitors
clocksource and watchdog reads in clocksource_watchdog() with kprobes. I
see the cs/wd reads executed roughly every 0.5 second, as expected. When
the machine is idle the average watchdog interval is 501.61 milliseconds
(+-15.57 ms, with a minimum of 477.07 ms and a maximum of 517.93 ms). The
result is similar when the CPUs of the machine are fully saturated with
netperf processes. I also tried booting with clocksource=jiffies and
tsc=watchdog. The watchdog interval was similar to the previous test.
AFAIK, the jiffies clocksource does get checked by the watchdog itself.
And with that, I have run out of ideas.
--
Jiri Wiesner
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-04 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-03 11:21 [PATCH] clocksource: Skip watchdog check for large watchdog intervals Jiri Wiesner
2024-01-03 22:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-04 16:30 ` Jiri Wiesner [this message]
2024-01-04 19:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-06 2:55 ` Feng Tang
2024-01-06 12:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-04 0:46 ` kernel test robot
2024-01-04 0:57 ` kernel test robot
2024-01-04 5:55 ` Feng Tang
2024-01-04 16:48 ` Jiri Wiesner
2024-01-08 13:44 ` kernel test robot
2024-01-10 18:36 ` Jiri Wiesner
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=20240104163050.GC3303@incl \
--to=jwiesner@suse.de \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@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