[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4921C5A1.5030609@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:27:29 -0800
From: Eddie Kohler <kohler@...ucla.edu>
To: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
Leandro Sales <leandroal@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, DCCP Mailing List <dccp@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] dccp ccid-3: High-res or low-res timers?
Gerrit Renker wrote:
> I would appreciate some advice and insights regarding the use of
> high-resolution timers within a transport protocol, specifically
> DCCP with CCID-3 (RFC 5348).
>
> ...
>
> Summing up, I have doubts that basing CCID-3 will bring advantages and
> would much rather go the other way and (consistently) use lower resolution.
>
> Thoughts?
I agree. If one way must be chosen, then choose lower resolution timers.
The biggest potential problem with lower-resolution timers is that a sender's
rate might be limited, not by network characteristics, but by timer
resolution. But DCCP allows a fair amount of burstiness already. And there
may be ways to avoid rate limitation in common cases without resorting to
hrtimers. For example, a sending application could use a mixture of
non-blocking system calls, allowing the sending application to "poke" the DCCP
implementation on every scheduling.
At any rate, it seems worth trying.
Eddie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists