Re: [PATCH clocksource 2/2] clocksource: Exponential backoff for load-induced bogus watchdog reads
From: Waiman Long
Date: Fri Nov 04 2022 - 22:50:20 EST
On 11/4/22 22:38, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:55:02AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 11/3/22 22:23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 09:01:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 11/3/22 20:26, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:20:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 11/3/22 16:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
+ needwarn = true;
+ }
+ if (needwarn) {
+ /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
+ pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval (%lu additional), probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL, cs->wd_bogus_count);
Just one question, does "%lu additional" means the number of bogus count
that doesn't meet the needwarn requirement and hence skipped. If so, I think
you have to use "cs->wd_bogus_cnt - 1". Other than that, the change looks
good to me.
It means the number since the last report, or, for the first report,
the number since boot.
Does that work for you?
OK, I think the word "additional" tricks me into thinking about extra bogus
messages in additional to the current one. Using another word like "total"
may be less confusing.
My concern with "total" is that people might think that the numbers
meant the total number of instances since boot.
So how about "(9 since last message)" or similar?
Thanx, Paul
Yes, that looks good to me.
Thank you, and please see below for the updated patch.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit a7dc308e8359eafb58df360e06b66ecbf79a4d0b
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Oct 28 10:38:58 2022 -0700
clocksource: Exponential backoff for load-induced bogus watchdog reads
The clocksource watchdog will reject measurements that are excessively
delayed, that is, by more than 1.5 seconds beyond the intended 0.5-second
watchdog interval. On an extremely busy system, this can result in a
console message being printed every two seconds. This is excessively
noisy for a non-error condition.
Therefore, apply exponential backoff to these messages. This exponential
backoff is capped at 1024 times the watchdog interval, which comes to
not quite one message per ten minutes.
Please note that the bogus watchdog reads that occur when the watchdog
interval is less than 0.125 seconds are still printed unconditionally
because these likely correspond to a serious error condition in the
timer code or hardware.
[ paulmck: Apply Feng Tang feedback. ]
[ paulmck: Apply Waiman Long feedback. ]
Reported-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/include/linux/clocksource.h b/include/linux/clocksource.h
index 1d42d4b173271..23b73f2293d6d 100644
--- a/include/linux/clocksource.h
+++ b/include/linux/clocksource.h
@@ -125,6 +125,9 @@ struct clocksource {
struct list_head wd_list;
u64 cs_last;
u64 wd_last;
+ u64 wd_last_bogus;
+ int wd_bogus_shift;
+ unsigned long wd_bogus_count;
#endif
struct module *owner;
};
diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
index 3f5317faf891f..4015ec6503a52 100644
--- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
+++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
@@ -442,14 +442,33 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
/* Check for bogus measurements. */
wdi = jiffies_to_nsecs(WATCHDOG_INTERVAL);
- if (wd_nsec < (wdi >> 2)) {
- /* This usually indicates broken timer code or hardware. */
- 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);
+ if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2) || cs_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
+ bool needwarn = false;
+ u64 wd_lb;
+
+ cs->wd_bogus_count++;
+ if (!cs->wd_bogus_shift) {
+ needwarn = true;
+ } else {
+ delta = clocksource_delta(wdnow, cs->wd_last_bogus, watchdog->mask);
+ wd_lb = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta, watchdog->mult, watchdog->shift);
+ if ((1 << cs->wd_bogus_shift) * wdi <= wd_lb)
+ needwarn = true;
+ }
+ if (needwarn) {
+ /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
+ pr_warn("timekeeping watchdog on CPU%d: Watchdog clocksource '%s' advanced an excessive %lld ns during %d-jiffy time interval (%lu since last message), probable CPU overutilization, skipping watchdog check.\n", smp_processor_id(), watchdog->name, wd_nsec, WATCHDOG_INTERVAL, cs->wd_bogus_count);
+ cs->wd_last_bogus = wdnow;
+ if (cs->wd_bogus_shift < 10)
+ cs->wd_bogus_shift++;
+ cs->wd_bogus_count = 0;
+ }
continue;
}
- if (wd_nsec > (wdi << 2)) {
- /* This can happen on busy systems, which can delay the watchdog. */
- 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);
+ /* Check too-short measurements second to handle wrap. */
+ if (wd_nsec < (wdi >> 2) || cs_nsec < (wdi >> 2)) {
+ /* This usually indicates broken timer code or hardware. */
+ 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;
}
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>