Re: [RFC PATCH V2 11/11] x86: tsc: avoid system instability in hibernation

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:43 PM Singh, Balbir <sblbir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 11:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:35:20AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > Hey Peter,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:50:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:45:26PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > From: Eduardo Valentin <eduval@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > System instability are seen during resume from hibernation when system
> > > > > is under heavy CPU load. This is due to the lack of update of sched
> > > > > clock data, and the scheduler would then think that heavy CPU hog
> > > > > tasks need more time in CPU, causing the system to freeze
> > > > > during the unfreezing of tasks. For example, threaded irqs,
> > > > > and kernel processes servicing network interface may be delayed
> > > > > for several tens of seconds, causing the system to be unreachable.
> > > > > The fix for this situation is to mark the sched clock as unstable
> > > > > as early as possible in the resume path, leaving it unstable
> > > > > for the duration of the resume process. This will force the
> > > > > scheduler to attempt to align the sched clock across CPUs using
> > > > > the delta with time of day, updating sched clock data. In a post
> > > > > hibernation event, we can then mark the sched clock as stable
> > > > > again, avoiding unnecessary syncs with time of day on systems
> > > > > in which TSC is reliable.
> > > >
> > > > This makes no frigging sense what so bloody ever. If the clock is
> > > > stable, we don't care about sched_clock_data. When it is stable you get
> > > > a linear function of the TSC without complicated bits on.
> > > >
> > > > When it is unstable, only then do we care about the sched_clock_data.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe what is not clear here is that we covering for situation
> > > where clock stability changes over time, e.g. at regular boot clock is
> > > stable, hibernation happens, then restore happens in a non-stable clock.
> >
> > Still confused, who marks the thing unstable? The patch seems to suggest
> > you do yourself, but it is not at all clear why.
> >
> > If TSC really is unstable, then it needs to remain unstable. If the TSC
> > really is stable then there is no point in marking is unstable.
> >
> > Either way something is off, and you're not telling me what.
> >
>
> Hi, Peter
>
> For your original comment, just wanted to clarify the following:
>
> 1. After hibernation, the machine can be resumed on a different but compatible
> host (these are VM images hibernated)
> 2. This means the clock between host1 and host2 can/will be different

So the problem is specific to this particular use case.

I'm not sure why to impose this hack on hibernation in all cases.