linux.git/kernel/time/tick-common.c, branch v6.6.131

timekeeping: Add a lockdep override in tick_freeze()

2025-05-02T05:51:00+00:00

[ Upstream commit 92e250c624ea37fde64bfd624fd2556f0d846f18 ]

tick_freeze() acquires a raw spinlock (tick_freeze_lock). Later in the
callchain (timekeeping_suspend() -> mc146818_avoid_UIP()) the RTC driver
acquires a spinlock which becomes a sleeping lock on PREEMPT_RT.  Lockdep
complains about this lock nesting.

Add a lockdep override for this special case and a comment explaining
why it is okay.

Reported-by: Borislav Petkov 
Reported-by: Chris Bainbridge 
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250404133429.pnAzf-eF@linutronix.de
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250330113202.GAZ-krsjAnurOlTcp-@fat_crate.local/
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAP-bSRZ0CWyZZsMtx046YV8L28LhY0fson2g4EqcwRAVN1Jk+Q@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

tick/nohz_full: Don't abuse smp_call_function_single() in tick_setup_device()

2024-06-21T12:38:46+00:00

commit 07c54cc5988f19c9642fd463c2dbdac7fc52f777 upstream.

After the recent commit 5097cbcb38e6 ("sched/isolation: Prevent boot crash
when the boot CPU is nohz_full") the kernel no longer crashes, but there is
another problem.

In this case tick_setup_device() calls tick_take_do_timer_from_boot() to
update tick_do_timer_cpu and this triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled)
in smp_call_function_single().

Kill tick_take_do_timer_from_boot() and just use WRITE_ONCE(), the new
comment explains why this is safe (thanks Thomas!).

Fixes: 08ae95f4fd3b ("nohz_full: Allow the boot CPU to be nohz_full")
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240528122019.GA28794@redhat.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240522151742.GA10400@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

tick/common: Align tick period during sched_timer setup

2023-06-16T18:45:28+00:00

The tick period is aligned very early while the first clock_event_device is
registered. At that point the system runs in periodic mode and switches
later to one-shot mode if possible.

The next wake-up event is programmed based on the aligned value
(tick_next_period) but the delta value, that is used to program the
clock_event_device, is computed based on ktime_get().

With the subtracted offset, the device fires earlier than the exact time
frame. With a large enough offset the system programs the timer for the
next wake-up and the remaining time left is too small to make any boot
progress. The system hangs.

Move the alignment later to the setup of tick_sched timer. At this point
the system switches to oneshot mode and a high resolution clocksource is
available. At this point it is safe to align tick_next_period because
ktime_get() will now return accurate (not jiffies based) time.

[bigeasy: Patch description + testing].

Fixes: e9523a0d81899 ("tick/common: Align tick period with the HZ tick.")
Reported-by: Mathias Krause 
Reported-by: "Bhatnagar, Rishabh" 
Suggested-by: Mathias Krause 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Tested-by: Richard W.M. Jones 
Tested-by: Mathias Krause 
Acked-by: SeongJae Park 
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/5a56290d-806e-b9a5-f37c-f21958b5a8c0@grsecurity.net
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/12c6f9a3-d087-b824-0d05-0d18c9bc1bf3@amazon.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230615091830.RxMV2xf_@linutronix.de

tick/common: Align tick period with the HZ tick.

2023-04-18T13:06:50+00:00

With HIGHRES enabled tick_sched_timer() is programmed every jiffy to
expire the timer_list timers. This timer is programmed accurate in
respect to CLOCK_MONOTONIC so that 0 seconds and nanoseconds is the
first tick and the next one is 1000/CONFIG_HZ ms later. For HZ=250 it is
every 4 ms and so based on the current time the next tick can be
computed.

This accuracy broke since the commit mentioned below because the jiffy
based clocksource is initialized with higher accuracy in
read_persistent_wall_and_boot_offset(). This higher accuracy is
inherited during the setup in tick_setup_device(). The timer still fires
every 4ms with HZ=250 but timer is no longer aligned with
CLOCK_MONOTONIC with 0 as it origin but has an offset in the us/ns part
of the timestamp. The offset differs with every boot and makes it
impossible for user land to align with the tick.

Align the tick period with CLOCK_MONOTONIC ensuring that it is always a
multiple of 1000/CONFIG_HZ ms.

Fixes: 857baa87b6422 ("sched/clock: Enable sched clock early")
Reported-by: Gusenleitner Klaus 
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20230406095735.0_14edn3@linutronix.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230418122639.ikgfvu3f@linutronix.de

timekeeping: Distangle resume and clock-was-set events

2021-08-10T15:57:23+00:00

Resuming timekeeping is a clock-was-set event and uses the clock-was-set
notification mechanism. This is in the way of making the clock-was-set
update for hrtimers selective so unnecessary IPIs are avoided when a CPU
base does not have timers queued which are affected by the clock setting.

Distangle it by invoking hrtimer_resume() on each unfreezing CPU and invoke
the new timerfd_resume() function from timekeeping_resume() which is the
only place where this is needed.

Rename hrtimer_resume() to hrtimer_resume_local() to reflect the change.

With this the clock_was_set*() functions are not longer required to IPI all
CPUs unconditionally and can get some smarts to avoid them.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210713135158.488853478@linutronix.de

tick/broadcast: Prefer per-cpu oneshot wakeup timers to broadcast

2021-05-31T15:04:45+00:00

Some SoCs have two per-cpu timer implementations where the timer with the
higher rating stops in deep idle (i.e. suffers from CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP)
but is otherwise preferable to the timer with the lower rating. In such a
design, selecting the higher rated devices relies on a global broadcast
timer and IPIs to wake up from deep idle states.

To avoid the reliance on a global broadcast timer and also to reduce the
overhead associated with the IPI wakeups, extend
tick_install_broadcast_device() to manage per-cpu wakeup timers separately
from the broadcast device.

For now, these timers remain unused.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210524221818.15850-4-will@kernel.org

tick: Use tick_check_replacement() instead of open coding it

2021-04-16T19:03:50+00:00

The function tick_check_replacement() is the combination of
tick_check_percpu() and tick_check_preferred(), but tick_check_new_device()
has the same logic open coded.

Use the helper to simplify the code.

[ tglx: Massage changelog ]

Signed-off-by: Wang Wensheng 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210326022328.3266-1-wangwensheng4@huawei.com

tick: Remove pointless cpu valid check in hotplug code

2020-12-16T10:26:27+00:00

tick_handover_do_timer() which is invoked when a CPU is unplugged has a
check for cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask) when it tries to hand over the
tick update duty.

Checking the result of cpumask_first() there is pointless because if the
online mask is empty at this point, then this would be the last CPU in the
system going offline, which is impossible. There is always at least one CPU
remaining. If online mask would be really empty then the timer duty would
be the least of the resulting problems.

Remove the well meant check simply because it is pointless and confusing.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201206212002.582579516@linutronix.de

tick: Get rid of tick_period

2020-11-19T09:48:29+00:00

The variable tick_period is initialized to NSEC_PER_TICK / HZ during boot
and never updated again.

If NSEC_PER_TICK is not an integer multiple of HZ this computation is less
accurate than TICK_NSEC which has proper rounding in place.

Aside of the inaccuracy there is no reason for having this variable at
all. It's just a pointless indirection and all usage sites can just use the
TICK_NSEC constant.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201117132006.766643526@linutronix.de

tick: Document protections for tick related data

2020-11-19T09:48:28+00:00

The protection rules for tick_next_period and last_jiffies_update are blury
at best. Clarify this.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201117132006.197713794@linutronix.de