From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now
 beyond the range time_after_eq().
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:41:27 +0100
Message-ID: <20131017164127.GA11894@zion.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1381944167-24918-1-git-send-email-jianhai.luan@oracle.com>
 <525FBB4F02000078000FBB30@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <525FA79F.8060601@oracle.com>
 <525FC98002000078000FBBB5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <52601274.5010008@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com>,
	<david.vrabel@citrix.com>, <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
	<wei.liu2@citrix.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: annie li <annie.li@oracle.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:53908 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756377Ab3JQQl3 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:41:29 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52601274.5010008@oracle.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:38:12AM +0800, annie li 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?
> 

I think Jan got this number with HZ=100. It take ~240 days for jiffies
to overflow in 32 bit machine when HZ=100.

Wei.

> Thanks
> Annie