Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:43:51 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <dmiller@sparks.net> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setsockopt() weirdness Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207141241480.15972-100000@search.sparks.net> In-Reply-To: <20020714085832.C74633@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > 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 :) I am. Perhaps I understood wrong, but I thought that HZ controlled the maximum latency when polling? > > 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 :) No, of course not. Thanks Luigi! --- David 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0207141241480.15972-100000>