From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 13 20:42:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B314116A4E1; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) Received: from pobox.codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CC313C458; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Sender:X-Spam-Status:Subject; b=KAJjG3tggy7529bsv8XNyeDspWbShrA7+HN2ODqB0PVZOMGnZY8y4P+YZriuLlR7BXfzYO5115Rmo4dJY2ZpGmchbXy/sO9/bYz5pv+UAFq86N2/Zo68d5Bn8BDfEmoNR6hdEPmyTg8QSFlw6wp5CBDkL8qinStk3yPr9h7YFC0=; Received: from codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by pobox.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1HcSbS-000Lpo-Mq; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:42:43 +0400 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:42:38 +0400 From: Eygene Ryabinkin To: Nate Lawson Message-ID: <20070413204237.GG49158@codelabs.ru> References: <4617D3A6.8000201@root.org> <20070409094010.GL26348@codelabs.ru> <461FDD28.6030502@root.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <461FDD28.6030502@root.org> Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_05 Cc: max@love2party.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: call for testers: altq in current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:42:49 -0000 Nate, good day! Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:42:32PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > > I see no difference between the -CURRENT from today and from 30th > > March (I see that your commit was made at 26th of March, but I am > > not sure that mu current was updated after it for the -CURRENT > > compiled at 30th of March). > > > > The bad news are that the ALTQ behaves wrong: when the CPU frequency > > is changed the bandwidth changes too. Either I am doing something > > wrong, or your commit should be polished a bit. > > First, add a printf at line 915 (end of function tsc_freq_changed() in > sys/contrib/altq/altq/altq_subr.c): > printf("machclk_freq now %d\n", machclk_freq); ^^ Should be %lu, I believe? > Does it trigger when you change the cpu freq? Is the number printent > correct (i.e. 400 million for 400 Mhz)? Yes, the numbers are perfectly correct. I will try to redo the tests on Monday (when I will be able to use the LAN link) and will watch for this debug information. Any other recommendations are, of course, welcome. > > First two logs, ifstat.bw3Kb.old.wan.log and ifstat.bw3Kb.new.wan.log > > do show the WAN results. The 100 Kbps corresponds to 400 MHz, 200 > > Kbps -- to 800 MHz, 410 Kbps -- to 1600 MHz and 560 Kbps -- to 2200 > > MHz CPU speed. I thought that I was bounded by the WAN link here. > > What was the CPU speed on bootup? 2200 MHz. -- Eygene