[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAACrLC0b5dyjJM=DGf-9nUOwar3O9EVTTR0tvynQj285EDpfwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:23:40 +0200
From: Srećko Jurić-Kavelj
<srecko.juric-kavelj@....hr>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using jiffies for tcp_time_stamp?
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Chris Friesen
> <chris.friesen@...band.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if it would make any difference to the tcp algorithms, but
>> certainly on some architectures you can get a fast and accurate hardware
>> timestamp.
>
> I would be interested in someone doing that experiment in light of the
> codel work.
I've looked this up in other implementations, e.g. FreeBSD uses 1ms
granularity no matter what HZ says, NetBSD has 500ms ticks, ...
I guess that granularity also depends on the retransmit timers used. I
didn't make out what's the precision of the timers that Linux uses in
TCP, but I guess it uses high resolution timers? At least on x86?
I've done a simple experiment by repeatedly calling clock_gettime
(from userspace, but I guess it ends up as a vsyscall). I get >17
million calls per second on a Q6600.
--
JKS
--
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