* [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails @ 2018-07-06 13:17 Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-10 20:13 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-06 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: john.stultz, tglx, linux-kernel; +Cc: gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Mukesh Ojha Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in timestamps. This issue can also come in a system where more than one clocksource are present and very first suspend fails. Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly. Success case: ------------ {sleeptime_injected=false} rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() => (sleeptime injected) rtc_resume() Failure case: ------------ {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false} rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume() sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed) Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> --- Changes in v3: * Updated commit subject and description. * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner. Changes in v2: * Updated the commit text. * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static variable 'sleeptime_injected'. kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644 --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) ts->tv_nsec = 0; } -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */ -static bool sleeptime_injected; +/* + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime. + * + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the timekeeper + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to update + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether sleep + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then. + * + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. + */ +static bool sleeptime_injected = true; /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ static bool persistent_clock_exists; @@ -1646,6 +1658,8 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64 *delta) raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); + sleeptime_injected = true; + timekeeping_forward_now(tk); __timekeeping_inject_sleeptime(tk, delta); @@ -1671,7 +1685,6 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) struct timespec64 ts_new, ts_delta; u64 cycle_now; - sleeptime_injected = false; read_persistent_clock64(&ts_new); clockevents_resume(); @@ -1743,6 +1756,8 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void) if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec || timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec) persistent_clock_exists = true; + sleeptime_injected = false; + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); timekeeping_forward_now(tk); -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-06 13:17 [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-10 20:13 ` John Stultz 2018-07-13 7:13 ` Mukesh Ojha 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2018-07-10 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is > only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to > suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime > as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value > of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in > timestamps. > > This issue can also come in a system where more than one > clocksource are present and very first suspend fails. > > Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly. > > Success case: > ------------ > {sleeptime_injected=false} > rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() => > > (sleeptime injected) > rtc_resume() > > Failure case: > ------------ > {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false} > rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume() > > sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed) > > Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> > --- > Changes in v3: > * Updated commit subject and description. > * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner. > > Changes in v2: > * Updated the commit text. > * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static > variable 'sleeptime_injected'. > > kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) > ts->tv_nsec = 0; > } > > -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */ > -static bool sleeptime_injected; > +/* > + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime. > + * > + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches > + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the timekeeper > + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to update > + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag > + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether sleep > + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then. > + * > + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag > + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. > + */ > +static bool sleeptime_injected = true; I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned about, and will just lead to future mistakes. Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? I think that will help make things a bit more clear, no? thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-10 20:13 ` John Stultz @ 2018-07-13 7:13 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-13 17:20 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-13 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang Hi John, Thanks for your response Please find my comments inline. On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is >> only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to >> suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime >> as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value >> of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in >> timestamps. >> >> This issue can also come in a system where more than one >> clocksource are present and very first suspend fails. >> >> Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly. >> >> Success case: >> ------------ >> {sleeptime_injected=false} >> rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() => >> >> (sleeptime injected) >> rtc_resume() >> >> Failure case: >> ------------ >> {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false} >> rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume() >> >> sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed) >> >> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> Changes in v3: >> * Updated commit subject and description. >> * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner. >> >> Changes in v2: >> * Updated the commit text. >> * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static >> variable 'sleeptime_injected'. >> >> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644 >> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) >> ts->tv_nsec = 0; >> } >> >> -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */ >> -static bool sleeptime_injected; >> +/* >> + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime. >> + * >> + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches >> + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the timekeeper >> + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to update >> + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag >> + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether sleep >> + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then. >> + * >> + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag >> + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >> + */ >> +static bool sleeptime_injected = true; > I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned > about, and will just lead to future mistakes. > > Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to > true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? " How do we know this ? This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true means no need to inject else need to inject. Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends path ensures it to make it false. Just to add here there are already two path where `sleeptime_injected` set to true one from NON-stop clocksource and other from persistant clock and the RTC one was missing, so we are adding with this patch. Cheers, -Mukesh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-13 7:13 ` Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-13 17:20 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 16:17 ` Mukesh Ojha 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2018-07-13 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for your response > Please find my comments inline. > > > On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> >>> Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is >>> only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to >>> suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime >>> as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value >>> of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in >>> timestamps. >>> >>> This issue can also come in a system where more than one >>> clocksource are present and very first suspend fails. >>> >>> Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly. >>> >>> Success case: >>> ------------ >>> {sleeptime_injected=false} >>> rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() => >>> >>> (sleeptime injected) >>> rtc_resume() >>> >>> Failure case: >>> ------------ >>> {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false} >>> rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume() >>> >>> sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed) >>> >>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >>> Changes in v3: >>> * Updated commit subject and description. >>> * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner. >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> * Updated the commit text. >>> * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static >>> variable 'sleeptime_injected'. >>> >>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 >>> *ts) >>> ts->tv_nsec = 0; >>> } >>> >>> -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */ >>> -static bool sleeptime_injected; >>> +/* >>> + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime. >>> + * >>> + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches >>> + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the >>> timekeeper >>> + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to >>> update >>> + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag >>> + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether >>> sleep >>> + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then. >>> + * >>> + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag >>> + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >>> + */ >>> +static bool sleeptime_injected = true; >> >> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >> >> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? > > > I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any sleep > time on resume? " > How do we know this ? > This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true means > no need to inject else need to inject. > > Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends > path ensures it to make it false. So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. Just the name sleeptime_injected is read a statement, which if we say is defaults to true, becomes confusing to think about when the timekeeping_suspend/resume code hasn't yet run (which is the case where your error cropped up) - and no sleeptime has actually been injected. So instead if we call it suspend_timing_needed and only set it on in timekeeping_resume() after the timekeeping code has not injected any sleep-time, then I think the code will make more sense to read. (And yes, we still need to set suspend_timing_needed false on timekeeping_suspend and in the inject_sleeptime call path - the logic doesn't change, just the naming and boolean state). thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-13 17:20 ` John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 16:17 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-16 16:30 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-16 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Thanks for your response >> Please find my comments inline. >> >> >> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is >>>> only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to >>>> suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime >>>> as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value >>>> of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in >>>> timestamps. >>>> >>>> This issue can also come in a system where more than one >>>> clocksource are present and very first suspend fails. >>>> >>>> Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly. >>>> >>>> Success case: >>>> ------------ >>>> {sleeptime_injected=false} >>>> rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() => >>>> >>>> (sleeptime injected) >>>> rtc_resume() >>>> >>>> Failure case: >>>> ------------ >>>> {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false} >>>> rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume() >>>> >>>> sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed) >>>> >>>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v3: >>>> * Updated commit subject and description. >>>> * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner. >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> * Updated the commit text. >>>> * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static >>>> variable 'sleeptime_injected'. >>>> >>>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644 >>>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 >>>> *ts) >>>> ts->tv_nsec = 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */ >>>> -static bool sleeptime_injected; >>>> +/* >>>> + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime. >>>> + * >>>> + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches >>>> + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the >>>> timekeeper >>>> + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to >>>> update >>>> + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag >>>> + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether >>>> sleep >>>> + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then. >>>> + * >>>> + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag >>>> + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >>>> + */ >>>> +static bool sleeptime_injected = true; >>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >>> >>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? >> >> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any sleep >> time on resume? " >> How do we know this ? >> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true means >> no need to inject else need to inject. >> >> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends >> path ensures it to make it false. > So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, > this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is > always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and > have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be misleading. But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue. If i understand you correctly you meant below code diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644 --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. */ -static bool sleeptime_injected = true; +static bool suspend_timing_needed; /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ static bool persistent_clock_exists; @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64 *delta) raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); - sleeptime_injected = true; + suspend_timing_needed = false; timekeeping_forward_now(tk); @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) tk->tkr_mono.mask); nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult, clock->shift); ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec); - sleeptime_injected = true; + suspend_timing_needed = true; } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, &timekeeping_suspend_time) > 0) { ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, timekeeping_suspend_time); - sleeptime_injected = true; + suspend_timing_needed = true; } if (sleeptime_injected) @@ -1756,7 +1756,7 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void) if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec || timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec) persistent_clock_exists = true; - sleeptime_injected = false; + suspend_timing_needed = false; raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); This has a problem.. > > Just the name sleeptime_injected is read a statement, which if we say > is defaults to true, becomes confusing to think about when the > timekeeping_suspend/resume code hasn't yet run (which is the case > where your error cropped up) - and no sleeptime has actually been > injected. Yes, when very first suspend fails and timekeeping_suspend/resume did not run ; That is the exact issue. So, exact solution is no need to inject any sleeptime here. If we set the default value to false then we will see timekeeping_resume will inject sleeptime by below code which was not intended. static int rtc_resume(struct device *dev) { struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev); struct rtc_time tm; struct timespec64 new_system, new_rtc; struct timespec64 sleep_time; int err; if (timekeeping_rtc_skipresume()) // it will return the value false as sleep failed and timekeeping_resume() did not get called. return 0; <sleeptime injection happens here> .... .. > > So instead if we call it suspend_timing_needed and only set it on in > timekeeping_resume() after the timekeeping code has not injected any > sleep-time, then I think the code will make more sense to read. (And > yes, we still need to set suspend_timing_needed false on > timekeeping_suspend and in the inject_sleeptime call path - the logic > doesn't change, just the naming and boolean state). Thanks for your time and patience. -Mukesh > thanks > -john ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-16 16:17 ` Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-16 16:30 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 17:14 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >>>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >>>> >>>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >>>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? >>> >>> >>> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any >>> sleep >>> time on resume? " >>> How do we know this ? >>> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true >>> means >>> no need to inject else need to inject. >>> >>> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends >>> path ensures it to make it false. >> >> So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, >> this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is >> always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and >> have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. > > > I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be misleading. > But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue. > > If i understand you correctly you meant below code > > diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) > * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag > * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. > */ > -static bool sleeptime_injected = true; > +static bool suspend_timing_needed; > > /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ > static bool persistent_clock_exists; > @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64 > *delta) > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); > write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); > > - sleeptime_injected = true; > + suspend_timing_needed = false; > > timekeeping_forward_now(tk); > > @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) > tk->tkr_mono.mask); > nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult, > clock->shift); > ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec); > - sleeptime_injected = true; > + suspend_timing_needed = true; > } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, &timekeeping_suspend_time) > > 0) { > ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, timekeeping_suspend_time); > - sleeptime_injected = true; > + suspend_timing_needed = true; > } No no... This part is wrong. We only set suspend_timing_needed if we *didn't* calculate the suspend time in timekeeping_resume. You have to invert all the boolean logic for it to be equivalent. > if (sleeptime_injected) > @@ -1756,7 +1756,7 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void) > if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec || > timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec) > persistent_clock_exists = true; > > - sleeptime_injected = false; > + suspend_timing_needed = false; > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); > > > This has a problem.. > > >> >> Just the name sleeptime_injected is read a statement, which if we say >> is defaults to true, becomes confusing to think about when the >> timekeeping_suspend/resume code hasn't yet run (which is the case >> where your error cropped up) - and no sleeptime has actually been >> injected. > > > Yes, when very first suspend fails and timekeeping_suspend/resume did not > run ; That is the exact issue. > So, exact solution is no need to inject any sleeptime here. > > If we set the default value to false then we will see timekeeping_resume > will inject sleeptime by below code which was not intended. > > static int rtc_resume(struct device *dev) > { > struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev); > struct rtc_time tm; > struct timespec64 new_system, new_rtc; > struct timespec64 sleep_time; > int err; > > if (timekeeping_rtc_skipresume()) // it will return the value false > as sleep failed and timekeeping_resume() did not get called. > return 0; > > <sleeptime injection happens here> So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but let me know if I'm still missing something. thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-16 16:30 ` John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 17:14 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 18:30 ` Mukesh Ojha 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:30 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>>> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>>>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >>>>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >>>>> >>>>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >>>>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? >>>> >>>> >>>> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any >>>> sleep >>>> time on resume? " >>>> How do we know this ? >>>> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true >>>> means >>>> no need to inject else need to inject. >>>> >>>> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends >>>> path ensures it to make it false. >>> >>> So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, >>> this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is >>> always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and >>> have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. >> >> >> I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be misleading. >> But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue. >> >> If i understand you correctly you meant below code >> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644 >> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) >> * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag >> * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >> */ >> -static bool sleeptime_injected = true; >> +static bool suspend_timing_needed; >> >> /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ >> static bool persistent_clock_exists; >> @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64 >> *delta) >> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); >> write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); >> >> - sleeptime_injected = true; >> + suspend_timing_needed = false; >> >> timekeeping_forward_now(tk); >> >> @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) >> tk->tkr_mono.mask); >> nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult, >> clock->shift); >> ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec); >> - sleeptime_injected = true; >> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >> } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, &timekeeping_suspend_time) > >> 0) { >> ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, timekeeping_suspend_time); >> - sleeptime_injected = true; >> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >> } > > No no... This part is wrong. We only set suspend_timing_needed if we > *didn't* calculate the suspend time in timekeeping_resume. > > You have to invert all the boolean logic for it to be equivalent. > ... >> <sleeptime injection happens here> > > > So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but > let me know if I'm still missing something. Sorry, I meant "with the logic bug above fixed it will work out". thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-16 17:14 ` John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 18:30 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-16 18:54 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 19:18 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-16 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On 7/16/2018 10:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:30 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>>>> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>>>>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >>>>>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >>>>>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? >>>>> >>>>> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any >>>>> sleep >>>>> time on resume? " >>>>> How do we know this ? >>>>> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true >>>>> means >>>>> no need to inject else need to inject. >>>>> >>>>> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends >>>>> path ensures it to make it false. >>>> So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, >>>> this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is >>>> always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and >>>> have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. >>> >>> I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be misleading. >>> But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue. >>> >>> If i understand you correctly you meant below code >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>> @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts) >>> * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag >>> * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >>> */ >>> -static bool sleeptime_injected = true; >>> +static bool suspend_timing_needed; >>> >>> /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ >>> static bool persistent_clock_exists; >>> @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64 >>> *delta) >>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); >>> write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); >>> >>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>> + suspend_timing_needed = false; >>> >>> timekeeping_forward_now(tk); >>> >>> @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) >>> tk->tkr_mono.mask); >>> nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult, >>> clock->shift); >>> ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec); >>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >>> } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, &timekeeping_suspend_time) > >>> 0) { >>> ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, timekeeping_suspend_time); >>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >>> } >> No no... This part is wrong. We only set suspend_timing_needed if we >> *didn't* calculate the suspend time in timekeeping_resume. >> >> You have to invert all the boolean logic for it to be equivalent. >> > ... >>> <sleeptime injection happens here> >> >> So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but >> let me know if I'm still missing something. Please give it thought to a case where very first suspend fails with your logic. If i am not able to get your thought, please write a patch. -Mukesh > Sorry, I meant "with the logic bug above fixed it will work out". > > thanks > -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-16 18:30 ` Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-07-16 18:54 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 19:18 ` Thomas Gleixner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > On 7/16/2018 10:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:30 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned >>>>>>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to >>>>>>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any >>>>>> sleep >>>>>> time on resume? " >>>>>> How do we know this ? >>>>>> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true >>>>>> means >>>>>> no need to inject else need to inject. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; >>>>>> suspends >>>>>> path ensures it to make it false. >>>>> >>>>> So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different, >>>>> this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is >>>>> always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and >>>>> have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on. >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be >>>> misleading. >>>> But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue. >>>> >>>> If i understand you correctly you meant below code >>>> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644 >>>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >>>> @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 >>>> *ts) >>>> * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the >>>> flag >>>> * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection. >>>> */ >>>> -static bool sleeptime_injected = true; >>>> +static bool suspend_timing_needed; >>>> >>>> /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */ >>>> static bool persistent_clock_exists; >>>> @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct >>>> timespec64 >>>> *delta) >>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags); >>>> write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); >>>> >>>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>>> + suspend_timing_needed = false; >>>> >>>> timekeeping_forward_now(tk); >>>> >>>> @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void) >>>> tk->tkr_mono.mask); >>>> nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult, >>>> clock->shift); >>>> ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec); >>>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>>> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >>>> } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, >>>> &timekeeping_suspend_time) > >>>> 0) { >>>> ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, >>>> timekeeping_suspend_time); >>>> - sleeptime_injected = true; >>>> + suspend_timing_needed = true; >>>> } >>> >>> No no... This part is wrong. We only set suspend_timing_needed if we >>> *didn't* calculate the suspend time in timekeeping_resume. >>> >>> You have to invert all the boolean logic for it to be equivalent. >>> >> ... >>>> >>>> <sleeptime injection happens here> >>> >>> >>> So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but >>> let me know if I'm still missing something. > > > Please give it thought to a case where very first suspend fails with your > logic. I believe I did. If the first suspend fails, we never reach timekeeping_resume, so we never set "suspend_time_needed = true", so then timekeeping_rtc_skipresume can then return true, and we don't inject the time in the RTC code. > If i am not able to get your thought, please write a patch. I probably will, but I'd like to encourage you to follow through on this one. You reported the issue, and submitted a few patches, so I think it would be good for you to also get the patch credit here. I don't believe its a complex request I've made, and I think you can figure it out. So, please, take one more real stab at this and I'll rework it if it seems necessary. thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails 2018-07-16 18:30 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-16 18:54 ` John Stultz @ 2018-07-16 19:18 ` Thomas Gleixner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2018-07-16 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: John Stultz, lkml, gkohli, cpandya, neeraju, Baolin Wang On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > On 7/16/2018 10:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: > > > So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but > > > let me know if I'm still missing something. > > Please give it thought to a case where very first suspend fails with your > logic. > If i am not able to get your thought, please write a patch. John wants you to invert the logic. i.e. true -> false false -> true if (var) -> if (!var) if (!var) -> if (var) It's not that hard, right? Thanks, tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-07-16 19:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-07-06 13:17 [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-10 20:13 ` John Stultz 2018-07-13 7:13 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-13 17:20 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 16:17 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-16 16:30 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 17:14 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 18:30 ` Mukesh Ojha 2018-07-16 18:54 ` John Stultz 2018-07-16 19:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).