From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 16 14:40:03 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC3D16A41C for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:40:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from lexi.siliconlandmark.com (lexi.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931E543D4C for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:40:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from lexi.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lexi.siliconlandmark.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5GEdqge022254; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:39:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost) by lexi.siliconlandmark.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) with ESMTP id j5GEdlKX022251; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:39:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: lexi.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:39:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: Eric Anderson In-Reply-To: <42B15F2E.9050408@centtech.com> Message-ID: <20050616103629.T42933@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20050616070445.GD2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050616.012302.48201645.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050616075743.GE2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050616.020442.31252848.imp@bsdimp.com> <42B15F2E.9050408@centtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-SL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SL-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-2.535, required 6, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.06, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-MailScanner-From: andy@siliconlandmark.com Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: incorrect ping(8) interval with powerd(8) 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: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:40:04 -0000 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Anderson wrote: > M. Warner Losh wrote: >> In message: <20050616075743.GE2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> >> Jeremie Le Hen writes: >> : > : May you delve into this a little bit more please ? The ping(8) >> manual >> : > : page states that the -i flags makes ping(8) to wait a given couple of >> : > : seconds. If I use the flags "-i 1", I expect ECHO Requests to be >> sent >> : > : with one second between each, whatever the AC line status is. >> : > : (Note that I didn't explicitely specified "-i 1" in the above >> example, >> : > : but this doesn't change the behaviour.) >> : > : > Well, the rount trip times went way up (3x longer). That's normal >> for >> : > a 200MHz CPU... My 333MHz EISA machine can't do much better than >> : > that. >> : > : > But the 2.252s run time is a little longish. Do you see this >> : > consistantly? If you ran it a second time would you get identical >> : > results. I've seen ARP take a while... What else do you have running >> : > on the system? Maybe a daemon that takes almost no time at 1.7GHz >> : > takes a lot longer at 200Mhz and that's starving the ping process... >> : > Or some driver has gone insane... >> : : Yes, I ran this test multiple times, and I almost get always this same >> : result although I got 2.208s sometimes, but I don't think this is >> : significant. >> : : FYI, >> : my powerd(8) is configured to tastes AC-line four times per seconds. >> : I tried reducing it's freqency from 4 to 1, but it doesn't change >> : anything. >> : : ARP is not the culprit, the MAC address is already in cache. >> : : My kernel is compiled with INVARIANTS, but I don't have WITNESS. My >> : network interface uses the bge(4) driver. No firewall rule or complex >> : network setup. >> : : Anyway this doesn't hurt much. Thanks for lightening me. >> >> Dang, I was hoping it was one of the easy explainations.... Maybe it >> is the idle code not waking up fast enough when it has been asleep for >> a bit. But that's pure speculation at this point... > > Another datapoint - running -CURRENT as of about June 7th, I see this too: > > $ time ping -i 1 -c 5 localhost > PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.041 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.029 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.031 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms > > --- localhost ping statistics --- > 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.029/0.034/0.041/0.004 ms > > real 0m9.728s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.003s > > On a 5-STABLE machine: > $ time ping -i 1 -c 5 localhost > PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.049 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.024 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.021 ms > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms > > --- localhost ping statistics --- > 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.021/0.032/0.049/0.010 ms > > real 0m4.064s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.005s > > > I have powerd running, but it makes no difference whether I have it running > or not, nor does it make any difference if I'm on ac or battery. > > This worked fine a couple weeks back for me - the only thing I recall > changing is adding apic to my kernel. Just out of curiosity, does removing debugging options from your kernel config change anything? Andy /* Andre Guibert de Bruet * 6f43 6564 7020 656f 2e74 4220 7469 6a20 */ /* Code poet / Sysadmin * 636f 656b 2e79 5320 7379 6461 696d 2e6e */ /* GSM: +1 734 846 8758 * 5520 494e 2058 6c73 7565 6874 002e 0000 */ /* WWW: siliconlandmark.com * Tormenting bytes since 1980. */