From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: annie li 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 Message-ID: <52601274.5010008@oracle.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jianhai luan , david.vrabel@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Beulich Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:32109 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757653Ab3JQQi3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:38:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <525FC98002000078000FBBB5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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