Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] x86: Fix vtime/file timestamp inconsistencies
From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100715134058.B8F1.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20100715101317.CB56.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
	 <1279162015.3372.61.camel@localhost>
	 <20100715134058.B8F1.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:30:07 -0700
Message-ID: <1279222207.2686.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 6806
Lines: 162

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:41 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 10:51 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:40 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Due to vtime calling vgettimeofday(), its possible that an application
> > > > > > could call  time();create("stuff",O_RDRW);  only to see the file's
> > > > > > creation timestamp to be before the value returned by time.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just dumb question.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Almost application are using gettimeofday() instead time(). It mean
> > > > > your fix don't solve almost application.
> > > > 
> > > > Correct,  filesystem timestamps and gettimeofday can still seem
> > > > inconsistently ordered. But that is expected.
> > > > 
> > > > Because of granularity differences (one interface is only tick
> > > > resolution, the other is clocksource resolution), we can't interleave
> > > > the two interfaces (time and gettimeofday, respectively) and expect to
> > > > get ordered results.
> > > 
> > > hmmm...
> > > Yes, times() vs gettimeofday() mekes no sense. nobody want this. but
> > > I don't understand why we can ignore gettimeofday() vs file-tiemstamp.
> > 
> > 
> > So, just to be clear, this discussion is really around the question of
> > "Why don't filesystems use a clocksource-granular (ie: getnstimeofday())
> > timestamps instead of tick-granular (ie current_kernel_time())
> > timestamps."
> > 
> > However, this is *not* what the patch that started this thread was
> > about. In the patch I'm simply fixing an inconsistency in the vtime
> > interface, where it does not align with what the syscall-time interface
> > provides. 
> > 
> > The issue was noticed via inconsistencies with filesystem timestamps,
> > but the patch does not change anything to do with filesystem timestamp
> > behavior.
> 
> Ah, I see. This patch is unrelated to filesystem timestamp. It fix inconsistency
> vsyscall with syscall. 
> 
> I agree that it should be fixed. So yes, other parts of my mail is a bit offtopic.
> 
> 
> > > > This is why the fix I'm proposing is important: Filesystem timestamps
> > > > have always been tick granular, so when vtime() was made clocksource
> > > > granular (by using vgettime internally) we broke the historic
> > > > expectation that the time() interface could be interleaved with
> > > > filesystem operations.
> > > > 
> > > > Side note: For full nanosecond resolution of the tick-granular
> > > > timestamps, check out the clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE, ...)
> > > > interface.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > So, Why can't we fix vgettimeofday() vs create() inconsistency?
> > > > > This is just question, I don't intend to disagree you.
> > > > 
> > > > The only way to make gettimeofday and create consistent is to use
> > > > gettimeofday clocksource resolution timestamps for files. This however
> > > > would potentially cause a large performance hit, since each every file
> > > > timestamp would require a possibly expensive read of the clocksource.
> > > 
> > > Why clocksource() reading is so slow? the implementation of current
> > > tsc clocksource ->read method is here.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	static cycle_t read_tsc(struct clocksource *cs)
> > > 	{
> > > 	        cycle_t ret = (cycle_t)get_cycles();
> > > 	
> > > 	        return ret >= clocksource_tsc.cycle_last ?
> > > 	                ret : clocksource_tsc.cycle_last;
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > It mean, the difference is almost only one rdtsc.
> > 
> > Sure, for hardware that can use the TSC clocksource, it is fairly cheap,
> > however there are numerous systems that cannot use the TSC (or
> > architectures that don't have a fast TSC like counter) and in those
> > cases a read can take more then a microsecond.
> 
> I'm not timekeeping expert. but my first impression is, if clocksource->read
> need more than a microsecond, it's really problematic. ->read of such clocksource
> should always return 0 instead honestly reading h/w counter.

Sadly there is quite a lot of x86 hardware that cannot use the TSC. So
the only alternative is the HPET (~0.8us) or ACPI PM (~1.2us).

If the clocksource->read() function returned 0 on those systems, then
gettimeofday would return only tick-granular time (again, which is what
CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE already provides). 

That said, Ingo had an optimization patch to do something quite similar,
giving up resolution for speed. And now the CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE code
is there it might be even easier to implement, but its not something we
can enable by default, as inter-tick resolution is need in many cases.

And yes, ideally every system would have a fast TSC like counter that
was accurate and reliable, and this would be less of an issue, but we
have to work with the hardware that is out there.


> > Even with the TSC, the multiplication required to convert to nanoseconds
> > adds extra overhead that isn't seen when using the pre-calculated
> > tick-granular current_kernel_time() value.
> > 
> > It may not seem like much, but with filesystems each small delay adds
> > up. 
> > 
> > I'm not a filesystems guy, and maybe there are some filesystems that
> > really want very fine-grained timestamps. If so they can consider
> > switching from using current_kernel_time() to getnstimeofday(). But due
> > to the likely performance impact, its not something I'd suggest doing.
> 
> Again, I'm not against you. I only would like to hear what you propose. because
> I'm not sure rough granularity time() vsyscall really makes userland happy.
> because (again) as far as iknow, alomsot applications don't use time().

Since I assume the developers who implemented the filesystem have
considered this trade off and made a choice.  I honestly don't have much
to propose here. :)

I think if you feel strongly that filesystems should use
clocksource-granular instead of tick-granular timestamps, you might try
to bring it up on ext4 devel list or even generate a patch and try it
out yourself (I've provided a trivial starting point for you below - but
its likely a real solution will be a bit more complex).

Good luck!

thanks
-john


diff --git a/kernel/time.c b/kernel/time.c
index 848b1c2..ce10dae 100644
--- a/kernel/time.c
+++ b/kernel/time.c
@@ -227,7 +227,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(adjtimex, struct timex __user *, txc_p)
  */
 struct timespec current_fs_time(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-	struct timespec now = current_kernel_time();
+	struct timespec now;
+	getnstimeofday(&now);
 	return timespec_trunc(now, sb->s_time_gran);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(current_fs_time);


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