Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:20:01 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: PSA: If you run -current, beware! Message-ID: <2082091.ZYtQ1zroo8@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <14095201.eEMelRF1IS@overcee.wemm.org> References: <8089702.oYScRm8BTN@overcee.wemm.org> <8273349.HE1luBF2tk@ralph.baldwin.cx> <14095201.eEMelRF1IS@overcee.wemm.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:00:46 AM Peter Wemm wrote: > On Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:48:54 AM John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday, February 05, 2015 04:22:23 PM Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:21:45AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 05, 2015 08:48:33 AM Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > It is fixed (in the proper meaning of the word, not like worked > > > > > > > around, > > > > > > > covered by paper) by the patch at the end of the mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have a story trying to enable much less ambitious > > > > > > > option > > > > > > > -fno-strict-overflow, see r259045 and the revert in r259422. I > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > see other way than try one more time. Too many places in kernel > > > > > > > depend on the correctly wrapping 2-complement arithmetic, among > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > are callweel and scheduler. > > > > > > > > > > Rather than depending on a compiler option, wouldn't it be > > > > > better/more > > > > > robust to change ticks to unsigned, which has specified wrapping > > > > > behavior? > > > > > > > > Yes, but non-trivial. It's also not limited to ticks. Since the > > > > compiler > > > > knows when it would apply these optimizations, it would be nice if it > > > > could > > > > warn instead (GCC apparently has a warning, but clang does not). > > > > Having > > > > people do a manual audit of every signed integer expression in the > > > > tree > > > > will take a long time. > > > > > > I think I misunderstood the problem as being limited to ticks, > > > which is probably only one symptom of a fundamental change in behaviour > > > of the compiler. > > > Still, it might be worthwhile start looking at ints that ought to be > > > implemented as u_int > > > > I actually agree, I just think we are stuck with -fwrapv in the interval, > > but it's probably not a short interval. I think converting ticks to > > unsigned would be a good first start. > > For the record, I agree. However, I suspect that attempts to do so will > have a non trivial number of bugs introduced. We have a track record of > recurring problems with tcp sequence number space arithmetic and tcp > timing, partly because the wraparounds happens infrequently. BTW; anybody working on this will want to run with kern.hz="100000" in loader.conf (or higher). Having the clock tick 100 times faster speeds the rollover up from every ~25 days to every ~6 hours. I don't know what the practical limit is but at some point it will cause sufficient pain due to contention that it won't be useful. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAABCAAGBQJU08JhAAoJEDXWlwnsgJ4EFpMIANIQPgj0aqZ/ul32WsXUJPrt qz1qkeL6eOC1cP2GQdkGOHY99voNY7CLcvoAqGFsGO/VTLGqKbjoNQhvX3Mn9zTx lMYVAUvQiC0XJLH+HG92ZPEhDpFSRcYyti4DZdrCj018eAA6b95UDe36ee0C37jl Rmtu2zEV/qPVtr1iwgFY6XEi5qZaiXfVGIjvEZy0RRX2cgvZJEvIkm44Bgf3zoFo dZw1ttz8p9lB67TKCuhRUA3OE7MnnwITI2Ak9nqXOTwc5Nbnzc/dB7fGDe2NVGPt nA2FvqfGGTmfSLXFB3AC99U6QRJrXeVUp/t2otRIi9w0hPZB2HIhXq8Gtt20daI= =99Le -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2082091.ZYtQ1zroo8>