Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now beyond the range time_after_eq().

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>]

On 17/10/13 11:19, jianhai luan wrote:
> 
> On 2013-10-17 17:15, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 17/10/13 10:02, jianhai luan wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-17 16:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16.10.13 at 19:22, Jason Luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> time_after_eq() only works if the delta is < MAX_ULONG/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> If netfront sends at a very low rate, the time between subsequent
>>>>> calls
>>>>> to tx_credit_exceeded() may exceed MAX_ULONG/2 and the test for
>>>>> timer_after_eq() will be incorrect.  Credit will not be replenished
>>>>> and
>>>>> the guest may become unable to send (e.g., if prior to the long
>>>>> gap, all
>>>>> credit was exhausted).
>>>>>
>>>>> We should add the scenario which now beyond next_credit+MAX_UNLONG/2.
>>>>> Because
>>>>> the fact now must be not before than expire, time_before(now, expire)
>>>>> == true
>>>>> will verify the scenario.
>>>>>       time_after_eq(now, next_credit) || time_before (now, expire)
>>>>>       ==
>>>>>       !time_in_range_open(now, expire, next_credit)
>>>> So first of all this must be with a 32-bit netback. And the not
>>>> coverable gap between activity is well over 240 days long. _If_
>>>> this really needs dealing with, then why is extending this from
>>>> 240+ to 480+ days sufficient? I.e. why don't you simply
>>>> change to 64-bit jiffy values, and use time_after_eq64()?
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If use time_after_eq64(), expire ,next_credit and other member will must
>>> be u64.
>> Yes, you'll need to store next_credit as a u64 in vif instead of
>> calculating it in tx_credit_exceeded from expires (which is only an
>> unsigned long).
> 
> I know that.  Even we use u64, time_after_eq()  will also do wrong judge
> in theory (not in reality because need long long time).

If jiffies_64 has millisecond resolution that would be more than
500,000,000 years.

> I think the two better fixed way is below:
>   - By time_before() to judge if now beyond MAX_ULONG/2

This is broken, so no.

David