Gerlando Falauto reported that when HRTICK is enabled, it is
possible to trigger system deadlocks. These were hard to
reproduce, as HRTICK has been broken in the past, but seemed
to be connected to the timekeeping_seq lock.
Since seqlock/seqcount's aren't supported w/ lockdep, I added
some extra spinlock based locking and triggered the following
lockdep output:
[ 15.849182] ntpd/4062 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 15.849765] (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff810aa9b5>] __queue_work+0x145/0x480
[ 15.850051]
[ 15.850051] but task is already holding lock:
[ 15.850051] (timekeeper_lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff810df6df>] do_adjtimex+0x7f/0x100
<snip>
[ 15.850051] Chain exists of: &(&pool->lock)->rlock --> &p->pi_lock --> timekeeper_lock
[ 15.850051] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 15.850051]
[ 15.850051] CPU0 CPU1
[ 15.850051] ---- ----
[ 15.850051] lock(timekeeper_lock);
[ 15.850051] lock(&p->pi_lock);
[ 15.850051] lock(timekeeper_lock);
[ 15.850051] lock(&(&pool->lock)->rlock);
[ 15.850051]
[ 15.850051] *** DEADLOCK ***
The deadlock was introduced by 06c017fdd4 ("timekeeping:
Hold timekeepering locks in do_adjtimex and hardpps") in 3.10
This patch avoids this deadlock, by moving the call to
schedule_delayed_work() outside of the timekeeper lock
critical section.
Reported-by: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@keymile.com>
Tested-by: Lin Ming <minggr@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org> #3.11, 3.10
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1378943457-27314-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks into timers/core
Frederic sayed: "Most of these patches have been hanging around for
several month now, in -mmotm for a significant chunk. They already
missed a few releases."
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Below is a patch from android kernel that maintains a histogram of
suspend times. Please review and provide feedback.
Statistices on the time spent in suspend are kept in
/sys/kernel/debug/sleep_time.
Cc: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Cc: Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@google.com>
Cc: San Mehat <san@google.com>
Cc: Benoit Goby <benoit@android.com>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@google.com>
[zoran.markovic@linaro.org: Re-formatted suspend time table to better
fit expected values. Moved accounting of suspend time into timekeeping
core. Removed CONFIG_SUSPEND_TIME flag and made the feature conditional
on CONFIG_DEBUG_FS. Changed the file name to sleep_time to better fit
terminology in timekeeping core. Changed seq_printf to seq_puts. Tweaked
commit message]
Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Since commit 31ade30692, timekeeping_init()
checks for presence of persistent clock by attempting to read a non-zero
time value. This is an issue on platforms where persistent_clock (instead
is implemented as a free-running counter (instead of an RTC) starting
from zero on each boot and running during suspend. Examples are some ARM
platforms (e.g. PandaBoard).
An attempt to read such a clock during timekeeping_init() may return zero
value and falsely declare persistent clock as missing. Additionally, in
the above case suspend times may be accounted twice (once from
timekeeping_resume() and once from rtc_resume()), resulting in a gradual
drift of system time.
This patch does a run-time correction of the issue by doing the same check
during timekeeping_suspend().
A better long-term solution would have to return error when trying to read
non-existing clock and zero when trying to read an uninitialized clock, but
that would require changing all persistent_clock implementations.
This patch addresses the immediate breakage, for now.
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@linaro.org>
[jstultz: Tweaked commit message and subject]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Shorten the seqcount write hold region to the actual update of the
timekeeper and the related data (e.g vsyscall).
On a contemporary x86 system this reduces the maximum latencies on
Preempt-RT from 8us to 4us on the non-timekeeping cores.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Use the shadow timekeeper to do the update_wall_time() adjustments and
then copy it over to the real timekeeper.
Keep the shadow timekeeper in sync when updating stuff outside of
update_wall_time().
This allows us to limit the timekeeper_seq hold time to the update of
the real timekeeper and the vsyscall data in the next patch.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
For calculating the new timekeeper values store the new cycle_last
value in the timekeeper and update the clock->cycle_last just when we
actually update the new values.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
For implementing a shadow timekeeper and a split calculation/update
region we need to store the cycle_last value in the timekeeper and
update the value in the clocksource struct only in the update region.
Add the extra storage to the timekeeper.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Since we are taking the timekeeping locks, just go ahead
and update any tai change directly, rather then dropping
the lock and calling a function that will just take it again.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Since ADJ_SETOFFSET adjusts the timekeeping state, process
it as part of the top level do_adjtimex() function in
timekeeping.c.
This avoids deadlocks that could occur once we change the
ntp locking rules.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
In order to change the locking rules, we need to provide
the timespec and tai values rather then having the ntp
logic acquire these values itself.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
In preparation for changing the ntp locking rules, move
do_adjtimex and hardpps accessor functions to timekeeping.c,
but keep the code logic in ntp.c.
This patch also introduces a ntp_internal.h file so timekeeping
specific interfaces of ntp.c can be more limitedly shared with
timekeeping.c.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Yet again, the kbuild test robot saves the day, noting
I left out defining __timekeeping_set_tai_offset as
static. It even sent me this patch.
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
We want to shorten the seqcount write hold time. So split the seqlock
into a lock and a seqcount.
Open code the seqwrite_lock in the places which matter and drop the
sequence counter update where it's pointless.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[jstultz: Merge fixups from CLOCK_TAI collisions]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Make the lock a separate entity. Preparatory patch for shadow
timekeeper structure.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[Merged with CLOCK_TAI changes]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Nothing outside of the timekeeping core needs that lock.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
