| Message ID | 20200225073731.465270-1-avagin@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: add the time namespace support | expand |
Hi Vincenzo, Have you had a chance to look at this series? Let me know if I need to rebase this patch set and resend it again. Thanks, Andrei
Hi Andrei, On 4/1/20 7:50 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > Hi Vincenzo, > > Have you had a chance to look at this series? Let me know if I need to > rebase this patch set and resend it again. > Sorry I still did not get the chance to have a look at your v2. I will try to do it by the end of this week, beginning of next. > Thanks, > Andrei >
Hi Andrei, On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > Allocate the time namespace page among VVAR pages and add the logic > to handle faults on VVAR properly. > > If a task belongs to a time namespace then the VVAR page which contains > the system wide VDSO data is replaced with a namespace specific page > which has the same layout as the VVAR page. That page has vdso_data->seq > set to 1 to enforce the slow path and vdso_data->clock_mode set to > VCLOCK_TIMENS to enforce the time namespace handling path. > > The extra check in the case that vdso_data->seq is odd, e.g. a concurrent > update of the VDSO data is in progress, is not really affecting regular > tasks which are not part of a time namespace as the task is spin waiting > for the update to finish and vdso_data->seq to become even again. > > If a time namespace task hits that code path, it invokes the corresponding > time getter function which retrieves the real VVAR page, reads host time > and then adds the offset for the requested clock which is stored in the > special VVAR page. > > v2: Code cleanups suggested by Vincenzo. > Sorry for the delay, I completed this morning the review of your patches and I do not have anymore comments on them. Thank you for making the effort and bringing the time namespace support to arm64. I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? --->8--- 1..4 ok 1 clockid: 1 abs:0 ok 2 clockid: 1 abs:1 not ok 3 # error clock_gettime: Invalid argument not ok 4 # error clock_gettime: Invalid argument Bail out! # Pass 2 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 2 1..1 ok 1 exec # Pass 1 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 0 1..8 not ok 1 # error Warning: failed to find clock_gettime in vDSO ./timens.sh: line 5: 15382 Segmentation fault (core dumped) ./gettime_perf 1..1 ok 1 Passed for /proc/uptime # Pass 1 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 0 1..10 ok 1 Passed for CLOCK_BOOTTIME (syscall) ok 2 Passed for CLOCK_BOOTTIME (vdso) not ok 3 # error syscall(SYS_clock_gettime(9)): Invalid argument not ok 4 # error clock_gettime(9): Invalid argument ok 5 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC (syscall) ok 6 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC (vdso) ok 7 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE (syscall) ok 8 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE (vdso) ok 9 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW (syscall) ok 10 Passed for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW (vdso) Bail out! # Pass 8 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 2 1..3 ok 1 clockid=7 ok 2 clockid=1 not ok 3 # error timerfd_create: Operation not supported Bail out! # Pass 2 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 1 1..3 ok 1 clockid=7 ok 2 clockid=1 ok 3 clockid=9 # Pass 3 Fail 0 Xfail 0 Xpass 0 Skip 0 Error 0 [...]
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Andrei, > > On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > > Allocate the time namespace page among VVAR pages and add the logic > > to handle faults on VVAR properly. > > > > If a task belongs to a time namespace then the VVAR page which contains > > the system wide VDSO data is replaced with a namespace specific page > > which has the same layout as the VVAR page. That page has vdso_data->seq > > set to 1 to enforce the slow path and vdso_data->clock_mode set to > > VCLOCK_TIMENS to enforce the time namespace handling path. > > > > The extra check in the case that vdso_data->seq is odd, e.g. a concurrent > > update of the VDSO data is in progress, is not really affecting regular > > tasks which are not part of a time namespace as the task is spin waiting > > for the update to finish and vdso_data->seq to become even again. > > > > If a time namespace task hits that code path, it invokes the corresponding > > time getter function which retrieves the real VVAR page, reads host time > > and then adds the offset for the requested clock which is stored in the > > special VVAR page. > > > > v2: Code cleanups suggested by Vincenzo. > > > > Sorry for the delay, I completed this morning the review of your patches and I > do not have anymore comments on them. Thank you for making the effort and > bringing the time namespace support to arm64. Thank you for the review of these patches. > > I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the > patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on > arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec64 *tp) { struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)]; if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) return -EINVAL; It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a separate patch to handle this case in tests properly. Thanks, Andrei
Hi Andrei, On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrei, >> [...] >> Sorry for the delay, I completed this morning the review of your patches and I >> do not have anymore comments on them. Thank you for making the effort and >> bringing the time namespace support to arm64. > > Thank you for the review of these patches. > >> >> I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the >> patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on >> arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? > > static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct > timespec64 *tp) > { > struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)]; > > if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) > return -EINVAL; > > It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a > separate patch to handle this case in tests properly. > This makes sense :) Please let me know when you post the fix so I can test it again. Are you planning as well to rebase this set? > Thanks, > Andrei >
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:02 AM Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Andrei, > > On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino > > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the > >> patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on > >> arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? > > > > static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct > > timespec64 *tp) > > { > > struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)]; > > > > if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a > > separate patch to handle this case in tests properly. > > > > This makes sense :) Please let me know when you post the fix so I can test it again. I have sent this fix: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/15/72 > > Are you planning as well to rebase this set? What is the right tree to rebase on? Thanks, Andrei
Hi Andrei, On 4/15/20 5:14 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:02 AM Vincenzo Frascino > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrei, >> >> On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino >>> <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the >>>> patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on >>>> arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? >>> >>> static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct >>> timespec64 *tp) >>> { >>> struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)]; >>> >>> if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a >>> separate patch to handle this case in tests properly. >>> >> >> This makes sense :) Please let me know when you post the fix so I can test it again. > > I have sent this fix: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/15/72 > That's good, I will try it by the end of this week or beginning of next and let you know the results. >> >> Are you planning as well to rebase this set?> > What is the right tree to rebase on? > I guess master, I was asking because it would make easier my testing :) > Thanks, > Andrei >