On 2013-10-15 16:43, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 10:44 +0800, jianhai luan wrote:
>> On 2013-10-14 19:19, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 04:53:18PM +0800, jianhai luan wrote:
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>     I meet the DomU's network interface hung issue recently, and have
>>>> been working on the issue from that time. I find that DomU's network
>>>> interface, which send lesser package, will hung if Dom0 running
>>>> 32bit and DomU's up-time is very long.  I think that one jiffies
>>>> overflow bug exist in the function tx_credit_exceeded().
>>>>     I know the inline function time_after_eq(a,b) will process jiffies
>>>> overflow, but the function have one limit a should little that (b +
>>>> MAX_SIGNAL_LONG). If a large than the value, time_after_eq will
>>>> return false. The MAX_SINGNAL_LONG should be 0x7fffffff at 32-bit
>>>> machine.
>>>>     If DomU's network interface send lesser package (<0.5k/s if
>>>> jiffies=250 and credit_bytes=ULONG_MAX), jiffies will beyond out
>>>> (credit_timeout.expires + MAX_SIGNAL_LONG) and time_after_eq(now,
>>>> next_credit) will failure (should be true). So one timer which will
>>>> not be trigger in short time, and later process will be aborted when
>>>> timer_pending(&vif->credit_timeout) is true. The result will be
>>>> DomU's network interface will be hung in long time (> 40days).
>>>>     Please think about the below scenario:
>>>>     Condition:
>>>>       Dom0 running 32-bit and HZ = 1000
>>>>       vif->credit_timeout->expire = 0xffffffff, vif->remaining_credit
>>>> = 0xffffffff, vif->credit_usec=0 jiffies=0
>>>>       vif receive lesser package (DomU send lesser package). If the
>>>> value is litter than 2K/s, consume 4G(0xffffffff) will need 582.55
>>>> hours. jiffies will large than 0x7ffffff. we guess jiffies =
>>>> 0x800000ff, time_after_eq(0x800000ff, 0xffffffff) will failure, and
>>>> one time which expire is 0xfffffff will be pended into system. So
>>>> the interface will hung until jiffies recount 0xffffffff (that will
>>>> need very long time).
>>> If I'm not mistaken you meant time_after_eq(now, next_credit) in
>>> netback. How does next_credit become 0xffffffff?
>> I only assume the value is 0xfffffff, and the value of next_credit
>> isn't  point. If the delta between now and next_credit larger than
>> ULONG_MAX, time_after_eq will do wrong judge.
> So it sounds like we need a timer which is independent of the traffic
> being sent to keep credit_timeout.expires rolling over.
>
> Can you propose a patch?

Because credit_timeout.expire always after jiffies, i judge the value 
over the range of time_after_eq() by time_before(now, 
vif->credit_timeout.expires). please check the patch.
>
> Ian.
>
>>> Wei.
>>>
>>>>     If some error exist in above explain, please help me point it out.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>