Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] netback: Xennet half die---netback driver didn't detect the jiffies wrapping correctly.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 09:25 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.11.12 at 09:35, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 08:09 +0000, Yi, Shunli wrote:
> >> Netback driver use " time_after_eq()" to check the jiffies wrapping,
> >> while this function was only called when the credit is  running out.
> >> So, if the jiffies wrapped and the credit isn't run out in first half
> >> jiffies circle, the time_after_eq() cannot check the wrapping any
> >> more.
> > 
> > Which tree is this against? It doesn't appear to be mainline Linux,
> > which is all I am really interested in these days.
> > 
> > Also your patch is missing a Signed-off-by and is whitespace damaged.
> > Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and
> > Documentation/SubmitChecklist.
> > 
> >> This will cause the credit_timerout.expires is set to dozens of days
> >> in future.
> >>
> >>  The netback will stop receiving data from netfront. 
> >> 
> >> For example: 
> >> Jiffies initialized to 0xffffff-(300*HZ), and the
> >> credit_timeout.expires was initialized to 0xffffff00, 
> >> After dozens of days,  when the jiffies grow to upper than 0x80000000,
> >> and the time_after_eq() will cannot check for the wrapping.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --- drivers/xen/netback/netback.c.org      2012-11-30 15:48:13.109039998 
> >> -0500
> >> +++ drivers/xen/netback/netback.c  2012-11-30 15:48:55.212072898 -0500
> >> @@ -1272,6 +1272,10 @@ static void net_tx_action(unsigned long
> >>            rmb(); /* Ensure that we see the request before we copy it. */
> >>            memcpy(&txreq, RING_GET_REQUEST(&netif->tx, i), sizeof(txreq));
> >>  
> >> +        /* Check for the jiffies wrapping */
> >> +        if (time_after_eq(jiffies, netif->credit_timeout.expires))
> >> +            netif->credit_timeout.expires = jiffies;
> > 
> > Do you not need to remove the similar check from the following block?
> 
> I don't think so, but I also can't see how that adjustment would
> help in the first place: If it gets executed after a very long period
> of no traffic, it would itself not be able to reliably tell whether the
> clock wrapped.

Hrm, yes, This change would help in the case of a dribble of traffic
which never hits the limit, but not in the case of no timer at all.

> That said, I agree that the code as is appears to have a problem
> (with 32-bit jiffies at least), but I can't see how to easily deal with
> it.

Would it help to always have the pending timer armed, for either the
next tick if credit needs replenishing or for, say MAX_JIFFIES/4 as a
backstop to avoid wrapping issues?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel