lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] jiffies wraparound [Re: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft]

On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:

> > It's a beauty wart, it's been there forever, and we know that machines
> > actually tend to survive it fine. So far I have _one_ person who has
>
> 1.2 survives mostly, 2.0 survives mostly, 2.1.x doesnt survive

hm, i've just reviewed the timer code from this angle again, and there is
a suspicious piece of code:

} else if (expires < timer_jiffies) {
/* can happen if you add a timer with expires == jiffies,
* or you set a timer to go off in the past
*/
insert_timer(timer, tv1.vec, tv1.index);
=====> } else if (idx < 0xffffffffUL) {
int i = (expires >> (TVR_BITS + 3 * TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
insert_timer(timer, tv5.vec, i);
} else {
/* Can only get here on architectures with 64-bit jiffies */
timer->next = timer->prev = timer;
}
shouldnt the (idx < 0xffffffffUL) condition be: (idx <= 0xffffffffUL)?
eg. if we have 'timer_jiffies == 0x0UL' (just wrapped around), and
'expires == 0xffffffffUL', then we have 'idx == 0xffffffffUL', but
(expires < timer_jiffies) is not true on a 32 bit box. Thus we get into
the last branch, which creates a timer with an infinit timeout ...
but this shouldnt happen too often i think when we just randomly wrap
jiffies (without heavy load that delays the processing of timer bhs), so i
guess there is something else going on.

-- mingo


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.435 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site