When at least one CPU runs in nohz_full mode, a dedicated timekeeper CPU
is guaranteed to stay online and to never stop its tick.
Meanwhile on some rare case, the dedicated timekeeper may be running
with interrupts disabled for a while, such as in stop_machine.
If jiffies stop being updated, a nohz_full CPU may end up endlessly
programming the next tick in the past, taking the last jiffies update
monotonic timestamp as a stale base, resulting in an tick storm.
Here is a scenario where it matters:
0) CPU 0 is the timekeeper and CPU 1 a nohz_full CPU.
1) A stop machine callback is queued to execute somewhere.
2) CPU 0 reaches MULTI_STOP_DISABLE_IRQ while CPU 1 is still in
MULTI_STOP_PREPARE. Hence CPU 0 can't do its timekeeping duty. CPU 1
can still take IRQs.
3) CPU 1 receives an IRQ which queues a timer callback one jiffy forward.
4) On IRQ exit, CPU 1 schedules the tick one jiffy forward, taking
last_jiffies_update as a base. But last_jiffies_update hasn't been
updated for 2 jiffies since the timekeeper has interrupts disabled.
5) clockevents_program_event(), which relies on ktime_get(), observes
that the expiration is in the past and therefore programs the min
delta event on the clock.
6) The tick fires immediately, goto 3)
7) Tick storm, the nohz_full CPU is drown and takes ages to reach
MULTI_STOP_DISABLE_IRQ, which is the only way out of this situation.
Solve this with unconditionally updating jiffies if the value is stale
on nohz_full IRQ entry. IRQs and other disturbances are expected to be
rare enough on nohz_full for the unconditional call to ktime_get() to
actually matter.
Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211026141055.57358-2-frederic@kernel.org
53e87e3cdc