From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] kernel/time/clockevents: compensate for monotonic clock's dynamic frequency
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:10:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87poqjm7r2.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607111029360.4083@nanos> (Thomas Gleixner's message of "Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:32:04 +0200 (CEST)")
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> > + raw = ((u64)interval >> 32) * raw_mult; /* Upper half of interval */
>> > + if (raw >> 32)
>> > + return KTIME_MAX;
>> > + raw <<= 32;
>> > + tmp = ((u64)interval & U32_MAX) * raw_mult; /* Lower half of interval */
>> > + if (U64_MAX - raw < tmp)
>> > + return KTIME_MAX;
>> > + raw += tmp;
>> > +
>> > + /* Finally, do raw /= mono_mult with proper rounding. */
>> > + if (U64_MAX - raw < mono_mult / 2)
>> > + return KTIME_MAX;
>> > + raw += mono_mult / 2;
>> > + do_div(raw, mono_mult);
>> > +
>> > + return (s64)raw;
>
> That's a complete insanity. No way that we are going to do all this math in
> the CE programming path.
>
> If you want to address the issue, then you need to find a way to adjust the
> mult/shift factors of the clock event device occasionally.
I tried adjusting the clock event device's ->mult, triggered by
timekeeping_apply_adjustment() and it works well.
I think that in order to avoid error accumulation, it is best not to do
any incremental updates to ->mult, but introduce a new ->mult_mono and
recalculate the latter from the former.
Now, the ->mult_mono needs to get updated when the driver updates
->mult. Certainly, hooking into clockevents_register_device() and
clockevents_update_freq() is the method of choice here. However,
there are a handful of drivers which set ->mult from
->set_state_oneshot() either by direct assignment or through
clockevents_config():
drivers/clocksource/sh_cmt.c
drivers/clocksource/sh_tmu.c
drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c
drivers/clocksource/h8300_timer8.c
Converting these to clockevents_update_freq() seems straightforward
though.
Another issue is that ->min_delta_ns and ->max_delta_ns are measured in
raw clock time while the delta in clockevents_program_event() would now
be interpreted as being in monotonic clock time:
clc = ((unsigned long long) delta * dev->mult_mono) >> dev->shift;
Ideally, I'd like to get rid of ->min_delta_ns and ->max_delta_ns
alltogether and consistently use the ->min_delta_ticks and
->max_delta_ticks instead. AFAICS, ->min_delta_ns is really needed only
for setting dev->next_event in clockevents_program_min_delta().
dev->next_event is read only from __clockevents_update_freq() for
reprogramming purposes and thus, assuming 0 for ->delta_min_ns in
clockevents_program_min_delta() would probably work: a reprogramming
would invoke clockevents_program_min_delta() once again.
The downside of this approach is that a quick grep reveals 40 clockevent
device drivers whose initialization code would need to get touched in
order to convert them from min_delta_ns/max_delta_ns to
min_delta_ticks/max_delta_ticks.
So, the question is whether I should do all of this or whether the
doubled timer interrupts aren't annoying enough to justify such a big
change?
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-12 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-10 19:30 [PATCH v2 0/4] avoid double timer interrupt with nohz and Intel TSC Nicolai Stange
2016-07-10 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] arch, x86, tsc deadline clockevent dev: reduce frequency roundoff error Nicolai Stange
2016-07-10 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] arch, x86, tsc deadline clockevent dev: reduce TSC_DIVISOR to 2 Nicolai Stange
2016-07-10 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] arch, x86, tsc: inform TSC deadline clockevent device about recalibration Nicolai Stange
2016-07-10 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] kernel/time/clockevents: compensate for monotonic clock's dynamic frequency Nicolai Stange
2016-07-11 6:32 ` Nicolai Stange
2016-07-11 8:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-07-12 11:10 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2016-07-12 15:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-07-13 13:08 ` Nicolai Stange
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=87poqjm7r2.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=christopher.s.hall@intel.com \
--cc=hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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