Re: [PATCH v2 clocksource 6/7] clocksource: Verify HPET and PMTMR when TSC unverified

[Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Paul!
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24 2023 at 16:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On systems with two or fewer sockets, when the boot CPU has CONSTANT_TSC,
> > NONSTOP_TSC, and TSC_ADJUST, clocksource watchdog verification of the
> > TSC is disabled.  This works well much of the time, but there is the
> > occasional production-level system that meets all of these criteria, but
> > which still has a TSC that skews significantly from atomic-clock time.
> > This is usually attributed to a firmware or hardware fault.  Yes, the
> > various NTP daemons do express their opinions of userspace-to-atomic-clock
> > time skew, but they put them in various places, depending on the daemon
> > and distro in question.  It would therefore be good for the kernel to
> > have some clue that there is a problem.
> >
> > The old behavior of marking the TSC unstable is a non-starter because a
> > great many workloads simply cannot tolerate the overheads and latencies
> > of the various non-TSC clocksources.  In addition, NTP-corrected systems
> > sometimes can tolerate significant kernel-space time skew as long as
> > the userspace time sources are within epsilon of atomic-clock time.
> >
> > Therefore, when watchdog verification of TSC is disabled, enable it for
> > HPET and PMTMR (AKA ACPI PM timer).  This provides the needed in-kernel
> > time-skew diagnostic without degrading the system's performance.
> 
> I'm more than unhappy about this. We finally have a point where the TSC
> watchdog overhead can go away without adding TSC=reliable to the kernel
> commandline.
> 
> Now you add an unconditionally enforce the watchdog again in a way which
> even cannot be disabled on the kernel command line.

Yes, this is a valid concern. Waiman, Paul and I discussed this and
had some proposal to handle this side effect, like only watchdoging 
HPET/ACPI-PM timer for a short period of time in this case.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221227183819.GI4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1/
My bad that I didn't follow up as my proposed code looked ugly as
bringing more complexsities. Does the idea of setting a watchdog
time limit sound fine to you?  

Thanks,
Feng

> Patently bad idea, no cookies for you!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx