lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [net-next PATCH v2 5/8] net: Track start of busy loop instead of when it should end
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 22:55 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> Right, but time_after assumes roll over. When you are using a time
>> value based off of local_clock() >> 10, you don't ever roll over when
>> you do addition. Just the clock rolls over. At least on 64 bit
>> systems.
>>
>> So if local time approaches something like all 1's, and we have
>> shifted it by 10 it is then the max it can ever reach is
>> 0x003FFFFFFFFFFFFF. I can add our loop time to that and it won't roll
>> over. In the mean time the busy_loop_us_ can never exceed whatever I
>> added to that so we are now locked into a loop. I realize I am
>> probably being pedantic, and it will have an exceedingly small rate of
>> occurrence, but it is still an issue.
>
> Do you realize that a 64bit clock wont rollover before the host has
> reached 584 years of uptime ?

Yeah, that is what I meant by "probably being pedantic". I was being
a too much of a perfectionist.

So I can work with the ">> 10" approach. The only thing I think I may
still want to change is that on 32b systems I will still use the
do_procintvec_minmax for busy_poll and busy_read to prevent us from
inputting values less than 0. For 64b systems we can do_procuintvec.
It isn't so much that I don't trust root, it is just that we didn't
really document the ranges anywhere for this so I figure if we at
least lock that down to the usable ranges since root may not be aware
of the implementation details.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-24 16:50    [W:0.077 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site