[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703061616.24959.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:16:24 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@...torb.msk.ru>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hawk@...u.dk,
harry@...os.washington.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Subject: Re: Packet timestamps (was: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20)
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 15:43, Vladimir B. Savkin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 2) "accurate_timestamps" is misleading.
> > Should be "disable_timestamps"
>
> Not, if default is 1, as in my patch.
Yes I saw this. I should write more words next time :)
Full explanation:
----------------------
If your tunable is named "accurate_timestamps" then a 0 value would mean :
Use a low precision timestamp (based on xtime for example) instead of a full
resolution...
This is not what your patch does (while it could do that, but beware that
net-2.6.22 includes now a ktime_t timestamping)
So :
------
It would be better to name the tunable "disable_timestamps", default 0 of
course....
It would better describe what your patch is actually doing : Even if a tcpdump
is running (so asking for timestamps), it wont have them because the sysctl
disabled them.
Thank you
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists