Re: [PATCH v3] time: Fix incorrect sleeptime injection when suspend fails

[John Stultz]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/13/2018 10:50 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mojha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned
>>>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to
>>>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume?
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any
>>> sleep
>>> time on resume? "
>>> How do we know  this ?
>>> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true
>>> means
>>> no need to inject else need to inject.
>>>
>>> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends
>>> path ensures it to make it false.
>>
>> So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different,
>> this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is
>> always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and
>> have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on.
>
>
> I understand your concern about the name of the variable will be misleading.
> But the changing Boolean state would not solve the actual issue.
>
> If i understand you correctly you meant below code
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index 32ae9ae..becc5bd 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts)
>   * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag
>   * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection.
>   */
> -static bool sleeptime_injected = true;
> +static bool suspend_timing_needed;
>
>  /* Flag for if there is a persistent clock on this platform */
>  static bool persistent_clock_exists;
> @@ -1658,7 +1658,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(struct timespec64
> *delta)
>         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
>         write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
>
> -       sleeptime_injected = true;
> +       suspend_timing_needed = false;
>
>         timekeeping_forward_now(tk);
>
> @@ -1714,10 +1714,10 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void)
>                                               tk->tkr_mono.mask);
>                 nsec = mul_u64_u32_shr(cyc_delta, clock->mult,
> clock->shift);
>                 ts_delta = ns_to_timespec64(nsec);
> -               sleeptime_injected = true;
> +               suspend_timing_needed = true;
>         } else if (timespec64_compare(&ts_new, &timekeeping_suspend_time) >
> 0) {
>                 ts_delta = timespec64_sub(ts_new, timekeeping_suspend_time);
> -               sleeptime_injected = true;
> +               suspend_timing_needed = true;
>         }

No no... This part is wrong. We only set suspend_timing_needed if we
*didn't* calculate the suspend time in timekeeping_resume.

You have to invert all the boolean logic for it to be equivalent.

>         if (sleeptime_injected)
> @@ -1756,7 +1756,7 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void)
>         if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec ||
> timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec)
>                 persistent_clock_exists = true;
>
> -       sleeptime_injected = false;
> +       suspend_timing_needed = false;
>
>         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
>
>
> This has a problem..
>
>
>>
>> Just the name sleeptime_injected is read a statement, which if we say
>> is defaults to true, becomes confusing to think about when the
>> timekeeping_suspend/resume code hasn't yet run (which is the case
>> where your error cropped up) - and no sleeptime has actually been
>> injected.
>
>
> Yes, when very first suspend fails and timekeeping_suspend/resume did not
> run ; That is the exact issue.
> So, exact solution is no need to inject any sleeptime here.
>
>  If we set the default value to false then we will see timekeeping_resume
> will inject sleeptime by below code which was not intended.
>
> static int rtc_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
>         struct rtc_device       *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
>         struct rtc_time         tm;
>         struct timespec64       new_system, new_rtc;
>         struct timespec64       sleep_time;
>         int err;
>
>         if (timekeeping_rtc_skipresume())  // it will return the value false
> as sleep failed and timekeeping_resume() did not get called.
>                 return 0;
>
>   <sleeptime injection happens here>


So, I think with the logic bug above it will work out properly, but
let me know if I'm still missing something.

thanks
-john