Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:30:31 +0800 From: "bycn82" <bycn82@gmail.com> To: "'Luigi Rizzo'" <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org> Subject: RE: kern/189720: [ipfw] [patch] pps action for ipfw Message-ID: <007f01cf7b52$efd8a0c0$cf89e240$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201405291520.s4TFK124032925@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201405291520.s4TFK124032925@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I got it, if the HZ=3D3, it always cannot meet the " 1 packet per 500ms" = perfectly.=20 But if we to "X packet per Y ticks", actually the result is the same, = still cannot meet the "1 packet per 500 ms" perfectly, instead, the = "packet per Y ticks" will force user to use " X packet per Y*300 ms". = And the user need to understand how many millisecond each tick is . =20 So I will update it this weekend.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > ipfw@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of 'Luigi Rizzo' > Sent: 29 May, 2014 23:20 > To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: kern/189720: [ipfw] [patch] pps action for ipfw >=20 > The following reply was made to PR kern/189720; it has been noted by > GNATS. >=20 > From: 'Luigi Rizzo' <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> > To: bycn82 <bycn82@gmail.com> > Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: kern/189720: [ipfw] [patch] pps action for ipfw > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:17:59 +0200 >=20 > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:06:27PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luigi Rizzo [mailto:rizzo@iet.unipi.it] > Sent: 29 May, 2014 = 22:12 > To: > bug-followup@FreeBSD.org; bycn82@gmail.com > Subject: kern/189720: > [ipfw] [patch] pps action for ipfw > > Hi, > I have looked at the = update from > May 13th but it is not ready yet, the code assumes HZ=3D1000 so 1 = tick=3D1ms. > > > > The translation can be done in userspace or in the kernel. > > I would prefer the latter. > > I see, > > If the HZ=3D3, that means every tick=3D333ms > And if the user = wants to ??? 1 > packet per 500ms???, then in the backend will not do the exactly the = same as > what user expect. > > > > Actually the implementation should be ???packets per ticks???, so = how > about this? Instead of translate it in codes. Why not update the = document, > and explain it to the user in the document ? >=20 > 'Packets per tick' this is not a useful specification since the = tick's duration is > unknown to the user. > Depending on the platform you can have HZ ranging from 15-20 (on = windows) > to 10000 or even more. Normal values are 100, 250, 1000 but you just = cannot > know what you are going to get. >=20 > Yes there are rounding issues, and yes it is boring to write code to = handle > them. >=20 > luigi > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?007f01cf7b52$efd8a0c0$cf89e240$>