Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Allow early timestamping of kernel log

From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Allow early timestamping of kernel log
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:17:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86k1c9nrsa.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bAFgDcc6ySCz7zzyeN0wg5WTcxFrKYQ6y5sz7grw-BfAw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:52:42 +0100,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:33 AM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > So far, we've let the arm64 kernel start its meaningful time stamping
> > of the kernel log pretty late, which is caused by sched_clock() being
> > initialised rather late compared to other architectures.
> >
> > Pavel Tatashin proposed[1] to move the initialisation of sched_clock
> > much earlier, which I had objections to. The reason for initialising
> > sched_clock late is that a number of systems have broken counters, and
> > we need to apply all kind of terrifying workarounds to avoid time
> > going backward on the affected platforms. Being able to identify the
> > right workaround comes pretty late in the kernel boot, and providing
> > an unreliable sched_clock, even for a short period of time, isn't an
> > appealing prospect.
> >
> > To address this, I'm proposing that we allow an architecture to chose
> > to (1) divorce time stamping and sched_clock during the early phase of
> > booting, and (2) inherit the time stamping clock as the new epoch the
> > first time a sched_sched clock gets registered.
> 
> Could we have a stable clock config for arm64: if it is known that
> this Linux build is going to run on non-broken firmware, and with a
> known stable cntvct_el0 register it can be optionally configured to
> use that stable sched_clock instead of generic clock that arm64 is
> using?

Hmmm. Then I guess a prerequisite is this patch:

https://lwn.net/Articles/490040/

as the number of systems this will reliably run on is a close
approximation to zero. Yes, counting is hard...

More seriously, we've been there before (cue the 32bit ARM port 8
years ago), and really don't want to go back to a time where we had
multiple config options for everything. There is one kernel, which
should run *reliably* on everything.

> This way, the early printk are going to be available on those
> systems without adding a different method for printk's only. It would
> also mean that other users of early sched_clock() such as ftrace could
> benefit from it.

See above. But maybe the real thing to do is to allow local_clock() to
be overridden. Same effect, same complexity, just hidden away from any
given subsystem.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel