From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Cassio Neri <cassio.neri@gmail.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: Avoid accidental unstable marking of clocksources
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 22:43:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <889b16c6-b6cc-63d7-a6de-8cec42c7d78c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211112054417.GA29845@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
On 11/12/21 00:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 06:43:11AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:57:03PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 05:17:31PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> Since commit db3a34e17433 ("clocksource: Retry clock read if long delays
>>>> detected") and commit 2e27e793e280 ("clocksource: Reduce clocksource-skew
>>>> threshold"), it is found that tsc clocksource fallback to hpet can
>>>> sometimes happen on both Intel and AMD systems especially when they are
>>>> running stressful benchmarking workloads. Of the 23 systems tested with
>>>> a v5.14 kernel, 10 of them have switched to hpet clock source during
>>>> the test run.
>>>>
>>>> The result of falling back to hpet is a drastic reduction of performance
>>>> when running benchmarks. For example, the fio performance tests can
>>>> drop up to 70% whereas the iperf3 performance can drop up to 80%.
>>>>
>>>> 4 hpet fallbacks happened during bootup. They were:
>>>>
>>>> [ 8.749399] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: hpet read-back delay of 263750ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>> [ 12.044610] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU19: hpet read-back delay of 186166ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>> [ 17.336941] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU28: hpet read-back delay of 182291ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>> [ 17.518565] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU34: hpet read-back delay of 252196ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>>
>>>> Other fallbacks happen when the systems were running stressful
>>>> benchmarks. For example:
>>>>
>>>> [ 2685.867873] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU117: hpet read-back delay of 57269ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>> [46215.471228] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU8: hpet read-back delay of 61460ns, attempt 4, marking unstable
>>>>
>>>> Commit 2e27e793e280 ("clocksource: Reduce clocksource-skew threshold"),
>>>> changed the skew margin from 100us to 50us. I think this is too small
>>>> and can easily be exceeded when running some stressful workloads on
>>>> a thermally stressed system. So it is switched back to 100us. On
>>>> the other hand, it doesn't look like we need to increase the minimum
>>>> uncertainty margin. So it is kept the same at 100us too.
>>>>
>>>> Even a maximum skew margin of 100us may be too small in for some systems
>>>> when booting up especially if those systems are under thermal stress. To
>>>> eliminate the case that the large skew is due to the system being too
>>>> busy slowing down the reading of both the watchdog and the clocksource,
>>>> a final check is done by reading watchdog time again and comparing the
>>>> consecutive watchdog timing read delay against WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW/2. If
>>>> that delay exceeds the limit, we assume that the system is just too
>>>> busy. A warning will be printed to the console and the watchdog check
>>>> is then skipped for this round. For example:
>>>>
>>>> [ 8.789316] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU13: hpet consecutive read-back delay of 174541ns, system too busy
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it may be better to add more details about the root cause, other
>>> than that it looks good to me, as we tested similar patch on our test
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
>> Thank you both!
>>
>> I agree on the bit about root cause. Would it make sense to compare the
>> difference between HPET reads 1 and 2 (containing the read of the TSC)
>> and the difference between HPET reads 2 and 3? If the 2-1 difference was
>> no more than (say) 8/7ths of the 3-2 difference, or the 2-1 difference
>> was no more than (say) 20 microseconds more than the 3-2 difference,
>> this could be considered a good-as-it-gets read, ending the retry loop.
>> Then if the 3-1 difference was greater than the default (100 microseconds
>> in current -rcu), that difference could be substituted for that particular
>> clocksource watchdog check. With a console message noting the unusually
>> high overhead (but not a splat).
>>
>> So if it took 75 microseconds for each HPET read and 1 microsecond for
>> the TSC read, then 226 microseconds would be substituted for the default
>> of 100 microseconds for that cycle's skew cutoff. Unless the previous
>> skew cutoff was larger, in which case the previous cutoff should be
>> used instead. Either way, the current cutoff is recorded for comparison
>> for the next clocksource watchdog check.
>>
>> If the 3-1 difference was greater than 62.5 milliseconds, a warning should
>> probably be emitted anyway.
>
> I can test the patch with our cases that could reproduce the problem.
>
>> Or did you have something else in mind?
> I'm not sure the detail in Waiman's cases, and in our cases (stress-ng)
> the delay between watchdog's (HPET here) read were not linear, that
> from debug data, sometimes the 3-2 difference could be bigger or much
> bigger than the 2-1 difference.
>
> The reason could be the gap between 2 reads depends hugely on the system
> pressure at that time that 3 HPET read happens. On our test box (a
> 2-Socket Cascade Lake AP server), the 2-1 and 3-2 difference are stably
> about 2.5 us, while under the stress it could be bumped to from 6 us
> to 2800 us.
>
> So I think checking the 3-2 difference plus increasing the max retries
> to 10 may be a simple way, if the watchdog read is found to be
> abnormally long, we skip this round of check.
On one of the test system, I had measured that normal delay
(hpet->tsc->hpet) was normally a bit over 2us. It was a bit more than
4us at bootup time. However, the same system under stress could have a
delay of over 200us at bootup time. When I measured the consecutive hpet
delay, it was about 180us. So hpet read did dominate the total
clocksource read delay.
I would not suggest increasing the max retries as it may still fail in
most cases because the system stress will likely not be going away
within a short time. So we are likely just wasting cpu times. I believe
we should just skip it if it is the watchdog read that is causing most
of the delay.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-13 3:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-10 22:17 [PATCH 0/2] clocksource: Avoid incorrect hpet fallback Waiman Long
2021-11-10 22:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: Avoid accidental unstable marking of clocksources Waiman Long
2021-11-11 4:57 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-11 14:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-12 5:44 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-12 13:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-13 3:43 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2021-11-14 15:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-15 2:08 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-15 3:24 ` Waiman Long
2021-11-15 7:59 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-15 14:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-16 1:36 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-16 20:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-15 19:19 ` Waiman Long
2021-11-10 22:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] clocksource: Add a Kconfig option for WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW Waiman Long
2021-11-10 22:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] clocksource: Avoid incorrect hpet fallback Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-10 23:25 ` Waiman Long
2021-11-11 0:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-11 1:19 ` Waiman Long
2021-11-11 1:23 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-11 1:30 ` Waiman Long
2021-11-11 1:53 ` Feng Tang
2021-11-11 3:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=889b16c6-b6cc-63d7-a6de-8cec42c7d78c@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=cassio.neri@gmail.com \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).