Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:24:59 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        0day robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com, neeraju@codeaurora.org,
        zhengjun.xing@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [clocksource]  8c30ace35d:
 WARNING:at_kernel/time/clocksource.c:#clocksource_watchdog
Message-ID: <20210430002459.GB975577@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <87y2d3mo2q.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <87a6pimt1f.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20210428183118.GR975577@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <878s517axu.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20210429142641.GU975577@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <87lf91f177.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20210429230411.GK4032392@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210429230411.GK4032392@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:04:11PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > The idea is to leave the watchdog code in kernel/time/clocksource.c,
> > > but to move the fault injection into kernel/time/clocksourcefault.c or
> > > some such.  In this new file, new clocksource structures are created that
> > > use some existing timebase/clocksource under the covers.  These then
> > > inject delays based on module parameters (one senstive to CPU number,
> > > the other unconditional).  They register these clocksources using the
> > > normal interfaces, and verify that they are eventually marked unstable
> > > when the fault-injection parameters warrant it.  This is combined with
> > > the usual checking of the console log.
> > >
> > > Or am I missing your point?
> > 
> > That's what I meant.
> 
> I still think all this stuff should be in the fault injection framework,
> like other fault injections, to have a consistent discoverable interface. 
> 
> I actually checked now and the standard fault injection supports boot arguments,
> so needing it at boot time shouldn't be a barrier.

Per Thomas's feedback, I am in the midst of converting this to a unit
test implemented as a kernel module, at which point the only fault
injection will be in the unit test.

At the moment, the code just registers, reads, unregisters, and verifies
that the bogus unit-test clocksources act normally.  Fault injection is
next on the list for the fine-grained clocksource.  Which, as Thomas
noted, is quite a bit simpler, as I just need to force a delay until
the clocksource gets marked unstable with no need for fancy counting.

							Thanx, Paul