Re: [PATCH clocksource 1/3] clocksource: Reject bogus watchdog clocksource measurements

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.stultz@linaro.org,
	sboyd@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, Mark.Rutland@arm.com,
	maz@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, neeraju@codeaurora.org,
	ak@linux.intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com,
	Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH clocksource 1/3] clocksource: Reject bogus watchdog clocksource measurements
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 07:21:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221121152107.GI4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3rMc2VbgVLHN9db@feng-clx>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:55:15AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 03:09:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:57:34PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Paul!
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 14 2022 at 15:28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > +		/* Check for bogus measurements. */
> > > > +		wdi = jiffies_to_nsecs(WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
> > > > +		if (wd_nsec < (wdi >> 2)) {
> > > > +			pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced only %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
> > > > +			continue;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
> > > > +			pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval, probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
> > > > +			continue;
> > > > +		}
> > > 
> > > This is really getting ridiculous.
> > 
> > I have absolutely no argument with this statement, and going back a
> > long time.  ;-)
> > 
> > But the set of systems that caused me to send this turned out to have
> > real divergence between HPET and TSC, and 40 milliseconds per second of
> > divergence at that.  So not only do you hate this series, but it is also
> > the case that this series doesn't help with the problem at hand.
> 
> The drift is about 4% which is quite big. It seems that this is
> either problem of HPET/TSC's hardware/firmware, or the problem of
> frequency calibration for HPET/TSC. TSC calibration is complex,
> as it could be done from different methods depending on hardware
> and firmware, could you share the kernel boot log related with
> tsc/hpet and clocksource? 

Thank you for looking into this!

Knucklehead here failed to save away the dmesg.  Let me see what
I can drum up.

> Also if your platform has acpi PM_TIMER, you may try "nohpet"
> to use PM_TIMER instead of HPET and check if there is also big
> drift between TSC and PM_TIMER.

Let me see about giving this a go, and again, thank you!

						Thanx, Paul