LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Imre Deak <>
To: Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc: LKML <>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <>,
	"Mika Kuoppala" <>,
	"Chris Wilson" <>
Subject: Re: Early timeouts due to inaccurate jiffies during system suspend/resume
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:01:28 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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

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:

do { ... } while(!hpet_cnt_ahead(...));
takes sometimes up to ~40msec for me.

if (mc146818_is_updating()) mdelay(20);

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.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-23 17:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-19  1:32 Imre Deak
2018-04-19 11:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-23 17:01   ` Imre Deak [this message]
2018-04-24 14:07     ` Imre Deak
2018-04-24 14:21       ` Ville Syrjälä
2018-04-26 21:40       ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Early timeouts due to inaccurate jiffies during system suspend/resume' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).