Re: [PATCH] Clocksource: Avoid misjudgment of clocksource

[brookxu]

hello

John Stultz wrote on 2021/10/9 7:45:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 1:03 AM yanghui <yanghui.def@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> clocksource_watchdog is executed every WATCHDOG_INTERVAL(0.5s) by
>> Timer. But sometimes system is very busy and the Timer cannot be
>> executed in 0.5sec. For example,if clocksource_watchdog be executed
>> after 10sec, the calculated value of abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) will
>> be enlarged. Then the current clocksource will be misjudged as
>> unstable. So we add conditions to prevent the clocksource from
>> being misjudged.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: yanghui <yanghui.def@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kernel/time/clocksource.c | 6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>> index b8a14d2fb5ba..d535beadcbc8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
>> @@ -136,8 +136,10 @@ static void __clocksource_change_rating(struct clocksource *cs, int rating);
>>
>>  /*
>>   * Interval: 0.5sec.
>> + * MaxInterval: 1s.
>>   */
>>  #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
>> +#define WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS (NSEC_PER_SEC)
>>
>>  static void clocksource_watchdog_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>  {
>> @@ -404,7 +406,9 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
>>
>>                 /* Check the deviation from the watchdog clocksource. */
>>                 md = cs->uncertainty_margin + watchdog->uncertainty_margin;
>> -               if (abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > md) {
>> +               if ((abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > md) &&
>> +                       cs_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS &&
> 
> Sorry, it's been awhile since I looked at this code, but why are you
> bounding the clocksource delta here?
> It seems like if the clocksource being watched was very wrong (with a
> delta larger than the MAX_INTERVAL_NS), we'd want to throw it out.
> 
>> +                       wd_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS) {
> 
> Bounding the watchdog interval on the check does seem reasonable.
> Though one may want to keep track that if we are seeing too many of
> these delayed watchdog checks we provide some feedback via dmesg.

For some fast timeout timers, such as acpi-timer, checking wd_nsec should not
make much sense, because when wacthdog is called, the timer may overflow many
times.

> thanks
> -john
>