user/sven/linux.git/kernel/time, branch v5.13.19

Revert "posix-cpu-timers: Force next expiration recalc after itimer reset"

2021-09-16T10:30:15Z

This reverts commit 75ef6fb512dde4c94686e6cb06498b64dfcace32 which is commit 406dd42bd1ba0c01babf9cde169bb319e52f6147 upstream. It is reported to cause regressions. A proposed fix has been posted, but it is not in a released kernel yet. So just revert this from the stable release so that the bug is fixed. If it's really needed we can add it back in in a future release. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87ilz1pwaq.fsf@wylie.me.uk Reported-by: "Alan J. Wylie" Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

hrtimer: Ensure timerfd notification for HIGHRES=n

2021-09-15T08:00:28Z

[ Upstream commit 8c3b5e6ec0fee18bc2ce38d1dfe913413205f908 ] If high resolution timers are disabled the timerfd notification about a clock was set event is not happening for all cases which use clock_was_set_delayed() because that's a NOP for HIGHRES=n, which is wrong. Make clock_was_set_delayed() unconditially available to fix that. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210713135158.196661266@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()

2021-09-15T08:00:28Z

[ Upstream commit 627ef5ae2df8eeccb20d5af0e4cfa4df9e61ed28 ] If __hrtimer_start_range_ns() is invoked with an already armed hrtimer then the timer has to be canceled first and then added back. If the timer is the first expiring timer then on removal the clockevent device is reprogrammed to the next expiring timer to avoid that the pending expiry fires needlessly. If the new expiry time ends up to be the first expiry again then the clock event device has to reprogrammed again. Avoid this by checking whether the timer is the first to expire and in that case, keep the timer on the current CPU and delay the reprogramming up to the point where the timer has been enqueued again. Reported-by: Lorenzo Colitti Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210713135157.873137732@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

posix-cpu-timers: Force next expiration recalc after itimer reset

2021-09-15T08:00:28Z

[ Upstream commit 406dd42bd1ba0c01babf9cde169bb319e52f6147 ] When an itimer deactivates a previously armed expiration, it simply doesn't do anything. As a result the process wide cputime counter keeps running and the tick dependency stays set until it reaches the old ghost expiration value. This can be reproduced with the following snippet: void trigger_process_counter(void) { struct itimerval n = {}; n.it_value.tv_sec = 100; setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &n, NULL); n.it_value.tv_sec = 0; setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &n, NULL); } Fix this with resetting the relevant base expiration. This is similar to disarming a timer. Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210726125513.271824-4-frederic@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

timers: Move clearing of base::timer_running under base:: Lock

2021-08-12T11:32:21Z

commit bb7262b295472eb6858b5c49893954794027cd84 upstream. syzbot reported KCSAN data races vs. timer_base::timer_running being set to NULL without holding base::lock in expire_timers(). This looks innocent and most reads are clearly not problematic, but Frederic identified an issue which is: int data = 0; void timer_func(struct timer_list *t) { data = 1; } CPU 0 CPU 1 ------------------------------ -------------------------- base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags); raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock); if (base->running_timer != timer) call_timer_fn(timer, fn, baseclk); ret = detach_if_pending(timer, base, true); base->running_timer = NULL; raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags); raw_spin_lock(&base->lock); x = data; If the timer has previously executed on CPU 1 and then CPU 0 can observe base->running_timer == NULL and returns, assuming the timer has completed, but it's not guaranteed on all architectures. The comment for del_timer_sync() makes that guarantee. Moving the assignment under base->lock prevents this. For non-RT kernel it's performance wise completely irrelevant whether the store happens before or after taking the lock. For an RT kernel moving the store under the lock requires an extra unlock/lock pair in the case that there is a waiter for the timer, but that's not the end of the world. Reported-by: syzbot+aa7c2385d46c5eba0b89@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+abea4558531bae1ba9fe@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Fixes: 030dcdd197d7 ("timers: Prepare support for PREEMPT_RT") Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87lfea7gw8.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process tick

2021-07-28T12:37:39Z

commit 1a3402d93c73bf6bb4df6d7c2aac35abfc3c50e2 upstream. Since the process wide cputime counter is started locklessly from posix_cpu_timer_rearm(), it can be concurrently stopped by operations on other timers from the same thread group, such as in the following unlucky scenario: CPU 0 CPU 1 ----- ----- timer_settime(TIMER B) posix_cpu_timer_rearm(TIMER A) cpu_clock_sample_group() (pct->timers_active already true) handle_posix_cpu_timers() check_process_timers() stop_process_timers() pct->timers_active = false arm_timer(TIMER A) tick -> run_posix_cpu_timers() // sees !pct->timers_active, ignore // our TIMER A Fix this with simply locking process wide cputime counting start and timer arm in the same block. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker Fixes: 60f2ceaa8111 ("posix-cpu-timers: Remove unnecessary locking around cpu_clock_sample_group") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Eric W. Biederman Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

timers: Fix get_next_timer_interrupt() with no timers pending

2021-07-28T12:37:27Z

[ Upstream commit aebacb7f6ca1926918734faae14d1f0b6fae5cb7 ] 31cd0e119d50 ("timers: Recalculate next timer interrupt only when necessary") subtly altered get_next_timer_interrupt()'s behaviour. The function no longer consistently returns KTIME_MAX with no timers pending. In order to decide if there are any timers pending we check whether the next expiry will happen NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA jiffies from now. Unfortunately, the next expiry time and the timer base clock are no longer updated in unison. The former changes upon certain timer operations (enqueue, expire, detach), whereas the latter keeps track of jiffies as they move forward. Ultimately breaking the logic above. A simplified example: - Upon entering get_next_timer_interrupt() with: jiffies = 1 base->clk = 0; base->next_expiry = NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA; 'base->next_expiry == base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA', the function returns KTIME_MAX. - 'base->clk' is updated to the jiffies value. - The next time we enter get_next_timer_interrupt(), taking into account no timer operations happened: base->clk = 1; base->next_expiry = NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA; 'base->next_expiry != base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA', the function returns a valid expire time, which is incorrect. This ultimately might unnecessarily rearm sched's timer on nohz_full setups, and add latency to the system[1]. So, introduce 'base->timers_pending'[2], update it every time 'base->next_expiry' changes, and use it in get_next_timer_interrupt(). [1] See tick_nohz_stop_tick(). [2] A quick pahole check on x86_64 and arm64 shows it doesn't make 'struct timer_base' any bigger. Fixes: 31cd0e119d50 ("timers: Recalculate next timer interrupt only when necessary") Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

clocksource: Check per-CPU clock synchronization when marked unstable

2021-07-14T15:06:36Z

[ Upstream commit 7560c02bdffb7c52d1457fa551b9e745d4b9e754 ] Some sorts of per-CPU clock sources have a history of going out of synchronization with each other. However, this problem has purportedy been solved in the past ten years. Except that it is all too possible that the problem has instead simply been made less likely, which might mean that some of the occasional "Marking clocksource 'tsc' as unstable" messages might be due to desynchronization. How would anyone know? Therefore apply CPU-to-CPU synchronization checking to newly unstable clocksource that are marked with the new CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU flag. Lists of desynchronized CPUs are printed, with the caveat that if it is the reporting CPU that is itself desynchronized, it will appear that all the other clocks are wrong. Just like in real life. Reported-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Feng Tang Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210527190124.440372-2-paulmck@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

clocksource: Retry clock read if long delays detected

2021-07-14T15:06:36Z

[ Upstream commit db3a34e17433de2390eb80d436970edcebd0ca3e ] When the clocksource watchdog marks a clock as unstable, this might be due to that clock being unstable or it might be due to delays that happen to occur between the reads of the two clocks. Yes, interrupts are disabled across those two reads, but there are no shortage of things that can delay interrupts-disabled regions of code ranging from SMI handlers to vCPU preemption. It would be good to have some indication as to why the clock was marked unstable. Therefore, re-read the watchdog clock on either side of the read from the clock under test. If the watchdog clock shows an excessive time delta between its pair of reads, the reads are retried. The maximum number of retries is specified by a new kernel boot parameter clocksource.max_cswd_read_retries, which defaults to three, that is, up to four reads, one initial and up to three retries. If more than one retry was required, a message is printed on the console (the occasional single retry is expected behavior, especially in guest OSes). If the maximum number of retries is exceeded, the clock under test will be marked unstable. However, the probability of this happening due to various sorts of delays is quite small. In addition, the reason (clock-read delays) for the unstable marking will be apparent. Reported-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Feng Tang Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210527190124.440372-1-paulmck@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

tick/nohz: Only check for RCU deferred wakeup on user/guest entry when needed

2021-05-31T08:14:49Z

Checking for and processing RCU-nocb deferred wakeup upon user/guest entry is only relevant when nohz_full runs on the local CPU, otherwise the periodic tick should take care of it. Make sure we don't needlessly pollute these fast-paths as a -3% performance regression on a will-it-scale.per_process_ops has been reported so far. Fixes: 47b8ff194c1f (entry: Explicitly flush pending rcuog wakeup before last rescheduling point) Fixes: 4ae7dc97f726 (entry/kvm: Explicitly flush pending rcuog wakeup before last rescheduling point) Reported-by: kernel test robot Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210527113441.465489-1-frederic@kernel.org