From: annie li <annie.li@oracle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now beyond the range time_after_eq().
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:38:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52601274.5010008@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <525FC98002000078000FBBB5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-17 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-16 17:22 [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now beyond the range time_after_eq() Jason Luan
2013-10-17 8:26 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2013-10-17 9:02 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 9:04 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 9:15 ` David Vrabel
2013-10-17 10:19 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 10:31 ` David Vrabel
2013-10-17 13:59 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 14:06 ` Wei Liu
2013-10-17 15:23 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 15:25 ` David Vrabel
2013-10-17 15:41 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-18 6:48 ` annie li
2013-10-17 9:26 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-17 9:59 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-17 16:38 ` annie li [this message]
2013-10-17 16:41 ` Wei Liu
2013-10-18 1:59 ` annie li
2013-10-18 7:43 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-18 8:14 ` annie li
2013-10-18 8:26 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-18 8:40 ` David Laight
2013-10-18 11:24 ` Wei Liu
2013-10-23 8:02 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-23 16:07 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-24 10:04 ` David Laight
2013-10-24 11:34 ` jianhai luan
2013-10-18 8:55 ` annie li
2013-10-17 16:21 ` annie li
2013-10-18 7:41 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52601274.5010008@oracle.com \
--to=annie.li@oracle.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=jianhai.luan@oracle.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).