[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296056600.2899.66.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:43:20 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: sys_epoll_wait high CPU load in 2.6.37
Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 07:31 -0800, Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > index cc8a9b7..7ec0890 100644
> > --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> > +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > @@ -1126,7 +1126,9 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> >
> > if (timeout > 0) {
> > ktime_get_ts(&end_time);
> > - timespec_add_ns(&end_time, (u64)timeout * NSEC_PER_MSEC);
> > + end_time.tv_sec += timeout / MSEC_PER_SEC;
> > + timeout %= MSEC_PER_SEC;
> > + timespec_add_ns(&end_time, timeout * NSEC_PER_MSEC);
> > slack = select_estimate_accuracy(&end_time);
> > to = &expires;
> > *to = timespec_to_ktime(end_time);
>
> Yep, we can overflow the timeout, with the calculation above.
> A timespec_add_ms()?
Well, given timeout after modulo contains a number between 0 and 999,
multiply by 1.000.000 (NSEC_PER_MSEC) cant overflow.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists