[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <526102DE02000078000FBFBB@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:43:58 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "annie li" <annie.li@...cle.com>
Cc: <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
<wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"jianhai luan" <jianhai.luan@...cle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario
which now beyond the range time_after_eq().
>>> On 17.10.13 at 18:38, annie li <annie.li@...cle.com> wrote:
> 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?
2^31 / 100 / 60 / 60 / 24
Obviously with HZ=1000 the span would be smaller by a factor
of 10, which would make it even more clear that doubling the
span doesn't really help.
Jan
--
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