From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 26 18:02:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982581065675; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:02:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF648FC15; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:02:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7QI2giQ056781; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:02:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: "M. Warner Losh" Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:33:42 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20080825.002316.-1548243307.imp@bsdimp.com> <200808251037.11126.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080826.012357.1973601375.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20080826.012357.1973601375.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808261033.43091.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:02:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8093/Tue Aug 26 12:01:30 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: net@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Code review X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:02:53 -0000 On Tuesday 26 August 2008 03:23:57 am M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200808251037.11126.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin writes: > : On Monday 25 August 2008 02:23:16 am M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > I did this a few years ago when trying to track down a problem with > : > some realtek network chips that I was having problems with at Timing > : > Solutions. I'd like to get this into the tree, since it was helpful > : > then. > : > > : > Comments? > : > : When you are running a faster tick I think want to only call the mii and > : watchdog stuff once a second still. I know this will break the tx watchdog > : for example. Since it's kind of tricky to manage that I think you should > : just use a separate timer for the twister stuff. > > Is this in general, or do you have a specific problem in mind with the > rl change? In general, we're not transmitting during this exercise > and it happens only once... Is it worth the extra hair? Worried more about the general case. Is mii_tick() going to be ok with being invoked more often? Also, if you are only doing this during attach or interface up, it might be simpler to have a private timer (shoot, if it's during attach the 'struct callout' can be on the stack) just for this bit. -- John Baldwin