Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: add running_clock for powerpc to prevent spurious softlockup warnings

[Cyril Bur]

cc'd Martin Schwidefsky and Heiko Carstens.

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 14:10 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:06:04 +1100 Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On POWER8 virtualised kernels the VTB register can be read to have a view of
> > time that only increases while the guest is running. This will prevent guests
> > from seeing time jump if a guest is paused for significant amounts of time.
> > 
> > On POWER7 and below virtualised kernels stolen time is subtracted from
> > sched_clock as a best effort approximation. This will not eliminate spurious
> > warnings in the case of a suspended guest but may reduce the occurance in the
> > case of softlockups due to host over commit.
> > 
> > Bare metal kernels should avoid reading the VTB as KVM does not restore sane
> > values when not executing. sched_clock is returned in this case.
> > 
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> > @@ -621,6 +621,30 @@ unsigned long long sched_clock(void)
> >  	return mulhdu(get_tb() - boot_tb, tb_to_ns_scale) << tb_to_ns_shift;
> >  }
> >  
> > +unsigned long long running_clock(void)
> 
> Non-kvm kernels don't need this code.  Is there some appropriate
> "#ifdef CONFIG_foo" we can wrap this in?
CONFIG_PSERIES would work, having said that typical compilation for a
powernv kernel almost always includes CONFIG_PSERIES (although it
doesn't need to)... still, your point is valid, will add in v2.
> 
> 
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Don't read the VTB as a host since KVM does not switch in host timebase
> > +	 * into the VTB when it takes a guest off the CPU, reading the VTB would
> > +	 * result in reading 'last switched out' guest VTB.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_LPAR)) {
> > +		if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S))
> > +			return mulhdu(get_vtb() - boot_tb, tb_to_ns_scale) << tb_to_ns_shift;
> > +
> > +		/* This is a next best approximation without a VTB. */
> > +		return sched_clock() - cputime_to_nsecs(kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat[CPUTIME_STEAL]);
> 
> Why is this result dependent on FW_FEATURE_LPAR?  It's all generic code.
Good point, the reason it ended up there is because I wanted to avoid
behaviour changes.
> 
> In fact the kernel/sched/clock.c default implementation of
> running_clock() could use this expression.  Would that be good or bad? :)
For power I'm almost certain it would be fine, on platforms which don't
do stolen time cpustat[CPUTIME_STEAL] should always be zero and if not
then the value should always be sane (although as mentioned in the
comment, not as accurate as using the VTB).

Putting it in the default implementation could cause behavioural changes
for x86 and s390, I would want their views on doing that.
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * On a host which doesn't do any virtualisation TB *should* equal VTB so
> > +	 * it makes no difference anyway.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	return sched_clock();
> > +}
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/