From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 16 08:04:56 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 1A0E016A41C for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:04:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.village.org (vc4-2-0-66.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B6E43D48 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:04:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5G83WVI034267; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:03:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:04:42 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20050616.020442.31252848.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jeremie@le-hen.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050616075743.GE2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20050616070445.GD2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050616.012302.48201645.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050616075743.GE2239@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 08:04:56 -0000 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... Warner