Re: [PATCH 3/6] timekeeping: Make it safe to use the fast timekeeper while suspended

[Travis <taskboxtester@gmail.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 5774 bytes --]

Sounds good to me!

On Feb 12, 2015 8:03 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 08:53:38 AM John Stultz wrote: 
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: 
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
> > > 
> > > Theoretically, ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() may be executed after 
> > > timekeeping has been suspended (or before it is resumed) which 
> > > in turn may lead to undefined behavior, for example, when the 
> > > clocksource read from timekeeping_get_ns() called by it is 
> > > not accessible at that time. 
> > 
> > And the callers of the ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() have to get back a 
> > value? 
>
> Yes, they do. 
>
> > Or can we return an error on timekeeping_suspended like we do 
> > w/ __getnstimeofday64()? 
>
> No, we can't. 
>
> > Also, what exactly is the case when the clocksource being read isn't 
> > accessible? I see this is conditionalized on 
> > CLOCK_SOURCE_SUSPEND_NONSTOP, so is the concern on resume we read the 
> > clocksource and its been reset causing a crazy time value? 
>
> The clocksource's ->suspend method may have been called (during suspend) 
> and depending on what that did we may even crash things theoretically. 
>
> During resume, before the clocksource's ->resume callback, it may just 
> be undefined behavior (random data etc). 
>
> For system suspend as we have today the window is quite narrow, but after 
> patch [4/6] from this series suspend-to-idle may suspend timekeeping and 
> just sit there in idle for extended time (hours even) which broadens the 
> potential exposure quite a bit. 
>
> Of course, it does that with interrupts disabled, but ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() 
> is for NMI, so theoretically, if an NMI happens while we're in suspend-to-idle 
> with timekeeping suspended and the clocksource is not CLOCK_SOURCE_SUSPEND_NONSTOP 
> and the NMI calls ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(), strange and undesirable things may 
> happen. 
>
> > > Prevent that from happening by setting up a dummy readout base for 
> > > the fast timekeeper during timekeeping_suspend() such that it will 
> > > always return the same number of cycles. 
> > > 
> > > After the last timekeeping_update() in timekeeping_suspend() the 
> > > clocksource is read and the result is stored as cycles_at_suspend. 
> > > The readout base from the current timekeeper is copied onto the 
> > > dummy and the ->read pointer of the dummy is set to a routine 
> > > unconditionally returning cycles_at_suspend.  Next, the dummy is 
> > > passed to update_fast_timekeeper(). 
> > > 
> > > Then, ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() will work until the subsequent 
> > > timekeeping_resume() and the proper readout base for the fast 
> > > timekeeper will be restored by the timekeeping_update() called 
> > > right after clearing timekeeping_suspended. 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
> > > --- 
> > >  kernel/time/timekeeping.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 
> > >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) 
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 
> > > =================================================================== 
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 
> > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 
> > > @@ -1249,9 +1249,23 @@ static void timekeeping_resume(void) 
> > >         hrtimers_resume(); 
> > >  } 
> > > 
> > > +/* 
> > > + * Dummy readout base and suspend-time cycles value for the fast timekeeper to 
> > > + * work in a consistent way after timekeeping has been suspended if the core 
> > > + * timekeeper clocksource is not suspend-nonstop. 
> > > + */ 
> > > +static struct tk_read_base tkr_dummy; 
> > > +static cycle_t cycles_at_suspend; 
> > > + 
> > > +static cycle_t dummy_clock_read(struct clocksource *cs) 
> > > +{ 
> > > +       return cycles_at_suspend; 
> > > +} 
> > > + 
> > >  static int timekeeping_suspend(void) 
> > >  { 
> > >         struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper; 
> > > +       struct clocksource *clock = tk->tkr.clock; 
> > >         unsigned long flags; 
> > >         struct timespec64               delta, delta_delta; 
> > >         static struct timespec64        old_delta; 
> > > @@ -1294,6 +1308,14 @@ static int timekeeping_suspend(void) 
> > >         } 
> > > 
> > >         timekeeping_update(tk, TK_MIRROR); 
> > > + 
> > > +       if (!(clock->flags & CLOCK_SOURCE_SUSPEND_NONSTOP)) { 
> > > +               memcpy(&tkr_dummy, &tk->tkr, sizeof(tkr_dummy)); 
> > > +               cycles_at_suspend = tk->tkr.read(clock); 
> > > +               tkr_dummy.read = dummy_clock_read; 
> > > +               update_fast_timekeeper(&tkr_dummy); 
> > > +       } 
> > 
> > Its a little ugly... though I'm not sure I have a better idea right off. 
> > 
> > thanks 
> > -john 
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in 
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/ 
>
> -- 
> I speak only for myself. 
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in 
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/ 
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥