Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:58:32 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: David Miller <dmiller@sparks.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setsockopt() weirdness Message-ID: <20020714085832.C74633@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207141116090.13872-100000@search.sparks.net>; from dmiller@sparks.net on Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:46AM -0400 References: <20020714075706.A74633@iguana.icir.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207141116090.13872-100000@search.sparks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:46AM -0400, David Miller wrote: ... > HZ is set to 5000; the machine is intended to process several tens of > thousands of very small packets per second, and interrupt processing was a > big problem. why don't you use "options DEVICE_POLLING" then :) > Does this mean that if one left HZ alone at 100 that you could only set it > for 320 seconds? There's no warning of this in the manpage for > setsockopt; I naturally assumed that one could set an unsigned long delay > and that it would work. Is this a bug, or just a feature I'm looking at > sideways? well it's obviously a bug, but we have been hit by this 2-3years ago with nfs (in-kernel), so i thought the problem had been fixed at the time by increasing the size of the relevant data structure. Maybe it was not done everywhere... > On a different note, how could I have discovered this without asking the > hackers list? bugs are bugs... so you can't expect to find them documented :) cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020714085832.C74633>