On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:14 AM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Geert,
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 09:21, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:16 AM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > A deadlock has been seen when swicthing clocksources which use PM runtime.
> > > The call path is:
> > > change_clocksource
> > > ...
> > > write_seqcount_begin
> > > ...
> > > timekeeping_update
> > > ...
> > > sh_cmt_clocksource_enable
> > > ...
> > > rpm_resume
> > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy
> > > ktime_get
> > > do
> > > read_seqcount_begin
> > > while read_seqcount_retry
> > > ....
> > > write_seqcount_end
> > >
> > > Although we should be safe because we haven't yet changed the clocksource
> > > at that time, we can't because of seqcount protection.
> > >
> > > Use ktime_get_mono_fast_ns instead which is lock safe for such case
> > >
> > > Fixes: 8234f6734c5d ("PM-runtime: Switch autosuspend over to using hrtimers")
> > > Reported-by: Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > /**
> > * ktime_get_mono_fast_ns - Fast NMI safe access to clock monotonic
> > *
> > * This timestamp is not guaranteed to be monotonic across an update.
> > * The timestamp is calculated by:
> > *
> > * now = base_mono + clock_delta * slope
> > *
> > * So if the update lowers the slope, readers who are forced to the
> > * not yet updated second array are still using the old steeper slope.
> > *
> > * tmono
> > * ^
> > * | o n
> > * | o n
> > * | u
> > * | o
> > * |o
> > * |12345678---> reader order
> > *
> > * o = old slope
> > * u = update
> > * n = new slope
> > *
> > * So reader 6 will observe time going backwards versus reader 5.
> > *
> > * While other CPUs are likely to be able observe that, the only way
> > * for a CPU local observation is when an NMI hits in the middle of
> > * the update. Timestamps taken from that NMI context might be ahead
> > * of the following timestamps. Callers need to be aware of that and
> > * deal with it.
> > */
> >
> > As this function is not guaranteed to be monotonic, have you checked how
> > the Runtime PM code behaves if time goes backwards? Does it just make
> > a suboptimal decision or does it crash?
>
> As a worst case this will generate a suboptimal decision around the update
So that should be explained in the changelog of the patch. In detail,
if poss, please.
