From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 21 14: 4:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (prism.flugsvamp.com [208.139.222.230]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC85E15544 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:04:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@prism.flugsvamp.com) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10190; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:05:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:05:54 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Matthew Dillon , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Odd TCP glitches in new currents Message-ID: <19991221160554.A10150@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <199912212146.PAA05052@free.pcs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <199912212146.PAA05052@free.pcs> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:50:50 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon wrote: > What happens when you specify a 1-tick timeout and the tick interrupt > occurs a microsecond later? For that matter what happens when you want > 1.5 ticks worth of timeout? Do you get only 1? What happens is that > the TCP stack thinks it timed out when it only just sent the packet a > few microseconds ago. This should be taken care of by the TCP_REXMTVAL macro, it adds in one additional tick, plus .5 ticks for rounding. It's possible that I've defined the TCPTV_MIN value to be wrong, you could try bumping this up while I go back and review my notes. -- Jonaghan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message