From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle DL5RB Subject: Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:37:37 +0000 Message-ID: <20051031113737.GB13561@linux-mips.org> References: <60418.192.168.1.2.1130098885.squirrel@192.168.1.12> <20051029204357.GD2935@linux-mips.org> <63925.192.168.1.2.1130629453.squirrel@192.168.1.12> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <63925.192.168.1.2.1130629453.squirrel@192.168.1.12> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 04:44:13PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote: > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:44:13 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question > From: aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net > To: "Ralf Baechle DL5RB" > Cc: aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:21:25PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote: > > > >> I am wondering is kissparms configuration is really working for me. I > >> have > >> made adjustments and there seems to be no change in the tnc timing. For > >> instance if I set txdelay to -t 30 the tnc acts as if it was set to > >> 10ms. > >> I am wondering if the timing is effected by the faster machines > >> available > >> today. In my case its a Intel 4, 3.2Ghz hyperthreading dual channel SMP > >> image. Could this hardware also be the cause of my kernel panic's when I > >> load ax25? > > > > In case you're using the kiss driver the kernel should just forward this > > setting to your TNC which then controls the actual tx delay. Other > > drivers > > such as 6pack do the tx delay themselves. So, what driver are you using? > > > > 73 de DL5RB op Ralf > > > > -- > > I was using kissparms to adjust the timing. The input from another person > did help to change the kernel timing to 1000HZ. > > Even then the system was still not stable. I have tabled the ax25 suite in > favor of JNOS2 which has been very solid with the latest kernel and Gentoo > linux. Its all working (tunnels, netrom, iptables, snort...) with uDev > etc. The HZ value should not have any influence on stability other than maybe changing some statistcal patterns in the code. Iow if it makes a difference on stability that would be a bug. That said, a few AX.25 system interfaces are using timer ticks as their unit - a timer tick on i386 used to be 10ms in 2.4, then became 1ms in 2.5 until HZ became a configuration option. Just to make things more entertaining (warning: your definition of entertaining may differ ;-) the size also differs between architectures and even some sub-architectures. In short: a mess. So I've cooked a patch that standardizes the unit of time on 1ms for all platforms. I did post that a while ago, no feedback so it must be good. I'm planning to submitting those patches for 2.6.15 with small changes - 1ms is probably a way to small unit for some of the values, for example the T3 timer where I believe seconds would be more convenient. 73 de DL5RB op Ralf -- Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21