Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:01:28 +0300
From:   Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= 
        <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Early timeouts due to inaccurate jiffies during system
 suspend/resume
Message-ID: <20180423170128.mf7g26rniimm7asf@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com>
Reply-To: imre.deak@intel.com
References: <20180419013200.wxkzqfdacfsijci5@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804191256200.1563@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804191256200.1563@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > while checking bug [1], I noticed that jiffies based timing loops like
> > 
> > 	expire = jiffies + timeout + 1;
> > 	while (!time_after(jiffies, expire))
> > 		do_something;
> > 
> > can last shorter than expected (that is less than timeout).
> 
> Yes, that can happen when the timer interrupt is delayed long enough for
> whatever reason. If you need accurate timing then you need to use
> ktime_get().

Thanks. I always regarded jiffies as non-accurate, but something that
gives a minimum time delay guarantee (when adjusted by +1 as above). I
wonder if there are other callers in kernel that don't expect an early
timeout.

We switched now to using ktime_get_raw() in the i915 driver.

> 
> > After some ftracing it seems like jiffies gets stale due to a missed
> > LAPIC timer interrupt after the interrupt is armed in
> > lapic_next_deadline() and before jiffies is sampled at 2. above.
> > Eventually the interrupt does get delivered, at which point jiffies gets
> > updated via tick_do_update_jiffies64() with a >1 ticks increment.
> > Between lapic_next_deadline() and the - late - delivery of the interrupt
> > the CPU on which the interrupt is armed doesn't go idle.
> 
> That's odd. I have no real explanation for that.

Looks like the reason is IRQ latency. For reference here are the
longest ones I found with irqsoff ftracing, all running with IRQs disabled
during system resume:

hpet_rtc_interrupt()->hpet_rtc_timer_reinit():
do { ... } while(!hpet_cnt_ahead(...));
takes sometimes up to ~40msec for me.

hpet_rtc_interrupt()->mc146818_get_time():
if (mc146818_is_updating()) mdelay(20);

driver_probe_device->atkbd_connect()->i8042_port_close()->__i8042_command()->i8042_wait_write():
takes sometimes up to ~10msec for me.

All the above paired with asynchronous calling of the drivers' resume
hooks may result in the jumps in jiffies I saw.

--Imre