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

[jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com>]

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).
I think the two better fixed way is below:
   - By time_before() to judge if now beyond MAX_ULONG/2
   - Add another timer to check and update expire in MAX_ULONG>>2 period.

Because second way isn't  be verified in practical (need more time to 
waiting jiffes increase),  I chose the first.
>
> David