Skip to contentSkip to conversation

RFC: Use of "jiffies" vs "jiffies64" in the neighbour system.

DISCUSSION Ulf Samuelsson 2 participants 3 messages Mar 25, 2015

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

If you run HZ = 1000, then jiffies will wrap around after 49,71 days. This means that all time compares in the neighbour system will fail.

From what I can see from "jiffies,h" there is no attempt to detect the wrap-around.

#define time_after(a,b)        \
    (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
     typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
     ((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0))

#define time_before(a,b) time_after(b,a)

#define time_after_eq(a,b)    \
    (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
     typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
     ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0))

#define time_before_eq(a,b) time_after_eq(b,a)

While the problem is not big for most users, I suspect it will affect quality at the time of wrap-around.

It looks like garbage collection will stop in neigh_alloc, since time has not passed time of last flush.

reachable time will no longer be recomputed in periodic_work

When you are in REACHABLE state, you will stay there, since "now" will be before "confirmed" +"reachable_time", so the entry will not be moved to DELAY or STALE,

If you are in delay state, you will move the entry into REACHABLE even if you did not get a response.

and so on....

Signature · 2 lines
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
#1 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Ulf Samuelsson

If you run HZ = 1000, then jiffies will wrap around after 49,71 days. This means that all time compares in the neighbour system will fail.

From what I can see from "jiffies,h" there is no attempt to detect the wrap-around.

#define time_after(a,b)        \
    (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
     typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
     ((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0))
Quoted 7 lines

#define time_before(a,b) time_after(b,a)

#define time_after_eq(a,b)    \
    (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
     typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
     ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0))

#define time_before_eq(a,b) time_after_eq(b,a)

I might have misunderstood you but those macros do handle the wrap-around. For example, with 64-bit long and a = 1, b = 0xffffffffffffffff, you get

((long)(b) - (long)(a)) = (-1) - (1) = -2 < 0

so that time_after(1, 0xffffffffffffffff) is true. It will give correct results as long as the difference is less than half of range of the type.

Michal Kubecek

#2 lore raw
Quoted 22 lines · Michal Kubecek
Quoted 10 lines · Ulf Samuelsson

If you run HZ = 1000, then jiffies will wrap around after 49,71 days. This means that all time compares in the neighbour system will fail.

From what I can see from "jiffies,h" there is no attempt to detect
the wrap-around.

#define time_after(a,b)        \
     (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
      typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
      ((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0))
Quoted 7 lines

#define time_before(a,b) time_after(b,a)

#define time_after_eq(a,b)    \
     (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
      typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
      ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0))

#define time_before_eq(a,b) time_after_eq(b,a)

I might have misunderstood you but those macros do handle the wrap-around. For example, with 64-bit long and a = 1, b = 0xffffffffffffffff, you get

Quoted 8 lines
   ((long)(b) - (long)(a)) = (-1) - (1) = -2 < 0

so that time_after(1, 0xffffffffffffffff) is true. It will give correct results as long as the difference is less than half of range of the type.

Michal Kubecek

OK, Now I see why it works.

Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson