[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52601274.5010008@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:38:12 +0800
From: annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC: jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@...cle.com>, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
ian.campbell@...rix.com, wei.liu2@...rix.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now
beyond the range time_after_eq().
On 2013-10-17 17:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Yes, the issue only can be reproduced in 32-bit Dom0 (Beyond
>> MAX_ULONG/2 in 64-bit will need long long time)
>>
>> I think the gap should be think all environment even now extending 480+.
>> if now fall in the gap, one timer will be pending and replenish will be
>> in time. Please run the attachment test program.
> Not sure what this is supposed to tell me. I recognize that there
> are overflow conditions not handled properly, but (a) I have a
> hard time thinking of a sensible guest that sits idle for over 240
> days (host uptime usually isn't even coming close to that due to
> maintenance requirements) and (b) if there is such a sensible
> guest, then I can't see why dealing with one being idle for over
> 480 days should be required too.
>
If the guest contains multiple NICs, that situation probably happens
when one NIC keeps idle and others work under load. BTW, how do you get
the 240?
Thanks
Annie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists