Re: [PATCH] FS: timerfd: Fix unexpected return value of timerfd_read function.

[Arul Jeniston <arul.jeniston@gmail.com>]

hi Tglx,

...
> > > Is the timer expiry and the timerfd_read() on the same CPU or on different
> > > ones?
> >

We have 10000+ units running in production. We see this problem ~20
switches in a span of one year time.
The problem is not seen more than once in the same unit. The
occurrence is random and unpredictable.
We tried to recreate this problem in LAB by loading the units similar
to the production unit.
so far we are not able to recreate it. It is very difficult to predict
what triggered this in the production units.
So, to find root cause, we studied and instrumented kernel code.

>   1) TSCs are out of sync or affected otherwise

If the TSC clock is unstable and not synchronized, Linux kernel throws
dmesg logs and changes the current clock source to next best timer
(hpet). But we didn't see these logs in any of the 10000 units.

>   2) Timekeeping has a bug.

As per our analysis,

After the timer expiry, after tsc is read in hrtimer_forward_now()
-->ktime_get()-->timekeeping_get_ns(), if the current thread (t1) is
interrupted and/or some other thread running in different CPU (t2)
updates timekeeper cycle_last value with a latest tsc than t1,
clocksource_delta() and timekeeping_get_delta() would return 0.
Eventually   timekeeping_delta_to_ns() would return a smaller value
based on the other two parameters (mult, xtime_nsec). If
base(timekeeper.tkr_mono.base) is not updated all this time, then
ktime_get() could return a value lesser than expiry time.
Note: CONFIG_DEBUG_TIMEKEEPING is not configured in our system.

> I was asking for a full boot log for a reason. Is it impossible to stick
> that into a mail?

Give me a day time to sync-up internally and update.

Regards,
Arul