Re: [PATCH] x86: tsc: Rework time_cpufreq_notifier()

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 23-04-19, 10:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:17 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-04-19, 16:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > There are problems with running time_cpufreq_notifier() on SMP
> > > systems.
> > >
> > > First off, the rdtsc() called from there runs on the CPU executing
> > > that code and not necessarily on the CPU whose sched_clock() rate is
> > > updated which is questionable at best.
> > >
> > > Second, in the cases when the frequencies of all CPUs in an SMP
> > > system are always in sync, it is not sufficient to update just
> > > one of them or the set associated with a given cpufreq policy on
> > > frequency changes - all CPUs in the system should be updated and
> > > that would require more than a simple transition notifier.
> > >
> > > Note, however, that the underlying issue (the TSC rate depending on
> > > the CPU frequency) has not been present in hardware shipping for the
> > > last few years and in quite a few relevant cases (acpi-cpufreq in
> > > particular) running time_cpufreq_notifier() will cause the TSC to
> > > be marked as unstable anyway.
> > >
> > > For this reason, make time_cpufreq_notifier() simply mark the TSC
> > > as unstable and give up when run on SMP and only try to carry out
> > > any adjustments otherwise.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c |   29 ++++++++++++++---------------
> > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > @@ -185,8 +185,7 @@ static void __init cyc2ns_init_boot_cpu(
> > >  /*
> > >   * Secondary CPUs do not run through tsc_init(), so set up
> > >   * all the scale factors for all CPUs, assuming the same
> > > - * speed as the bootup CPU. (cpufreq notifiers will fix this
> > > - * up if their speed diverges)
> > > + * speed as the bootup CPU.
> > >   */
> > >  static void __init cyc2ns_init_secondary_cpus(void)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -937,12 +936,12 @@ void tsc_restore_sched_clock_state(void)
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> > > -/* Frequency scaling support. Adjust the TSC based timer when the cpu frequency
> > > +/*
> > > + * Frequency scaling support. Adjust the TSC based timer when the CPU frequency
> > >   * changes.
> > >   *
> > > - * RED-PEN: On SMP we assume all CPUs run with the same frequency.  It's
> > > - * not that important because current Opteron setups do not support
> > > - * scaling on SMP anyroads.
> > > + * NOTE: On SMP the situation is not fixable in general, so simply mark the TSC
> > > + * as unstable and give up in those cases.
> > >   *
> > >   * Should fix up last_tsc too. Currently gettimeofday in the
> > >   * first tick after the change will be slightly wrong.
> > > @@ -956,22 +955,22 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct
> > >                               void *data)
> > >  {
> > >       struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > -     unsigned long *lpj;
> > >
> > > -     lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > -     if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > > -             lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > > -#endif
> > > +     if (num_online_cpus() > 1) {
> >
> > What about checking num_possible_cpus() instead ? So we reliably quit
> > everytime even if some CPUs are offlined.
> 
> That would work too.
> 
> The point here is that the adjustments can work if the "additional"
> CPUs never go online.

Hmm, okay.

> > And can we place this check before registering the notifier, so it
> > never gets called ?
> 
> Well, in that case the TSC would need to be marked as unstable
> upfront, but that really only would be necessary if cpufreq was
> actually used.  If it wasn't used, whatever the reason, marking the
> TSC as unstable here would be excessive.
> 
> We're talking about old HW, mind you, and I know about systems shipped
> around that time frame that didn't support performance scaling at all
> and had the TSC (see the Opteron comment removed by this patch, for
> instance).
> 
> So I'd rather not change that part.

Fair enough.

-- 
viresh