Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:06:10 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cperciva@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcp_isn_tick() / dummynet() callout madness ? Message-ID: <20050130150328.K59844@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050130112410.15336A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050130112410.15336A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Robert Watson wrote: > Note that the remainder run 1/100th as often, presumably because they do > hz/10 or hz/100 or the like. I've talked to both Colin Percival and Mike > Silby about the problem -- since the callout_reset() is one of the more > expensive parts of this code, Colin has been looking at some locking > optimizations to lower the cost. I attempted to convince Mike that if we > thought the ISN sequencing was "sufficiently secure" with HZ of 100, then > we should be able to still run it at hz/100 now instead of 1000 times per > second, but he seems resistant. I'll CC him so he's forced to reconsider > :-). You're right, reducing tcp_isn_tick to 100 hz won't really hurt anything. However, I'd still like an efficient way to run sometime once per tick. Is there a better place to hook in instead of callouts? Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050130150328.K59844>