Re: [patch 2/2] timekeeping: Always check for negative motion

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Wed, Nov 27 2024 at 15:02, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/27/24 14:08, John Stultz wrote:
> An example log is at [1]. It says
>
> clocksource: npcm7xx-timer1: mask: 0xffffff max_cycles: 0xffffff, max_idle_ns: 597268854 ns

That's a 24bit counter. So negative motion happens when the readouts are
more than (1 << 23) apart. AFAICT the counter runs with about 14MHz, but
I'd like to have that confirmed.

> clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> ...
> clocksource: Switched to clocksource npcm7xx-timer1
>
> I don't know where exactly it stalls; sometime after handover to userspace.
> I'll be happy to do some more debugging, but you'll nee to let me know what
> to look for.

On that platform max_idle_ns should correspond to 50% of the counter
width. So if both CPUs go deep idle for max_idle_ns, then the next timer
interrupt doing the timeeeping advancement sees a delta of > (1 << 23)
and timekeeping stalls.

If my ssumption is correct, then the below should fix it.

Thanks,

        tglx
---
--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
@@ -2221,7 +2221,7 @@ static bool timekeeping_advance(enum tim
 	struct timekeeper *real_tk = &tk_core.timekeeper;
 	unsigned int clock_set = 0;
 	int shift = 0, maxshift;
-	u64 offset;
+	u64 offset, maxcyc;
 
 	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&tk_core.lock);
 
@@ -2229,8 +2229,13 @@ static bool timekeeping_advance(enum tim
 	if (unlikely(timekeeping_suspended))
 		return false;
 
-	offset = clocksource_delta(tk_clock_read(&tk->tkr_mono),
-				   tk->tkr_mono.cycle_last, tk->tkr_mono.mask);
+	offset = tk_clock_read(&tk->tkr_mono) - tk->tkr_mono.cycle_last;
+	offset &= tk->tkr_mono.mask;
+
+	maxcyc = tk->tkr_mono.mask >>= 1;
+	maxcyc += tk->tkr_mono.mask >>= 2;
+	if (offset > maxcyc)
+		offset = 0;
 
 	/* Check if there's really nothing to do */
 	if (offset < real_tk->cycle_interval && mode == TK_ADV_TICK)