netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: juhlenko@akamai.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	shemminger@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] net: enable timestamps on a per-socket basis
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:44:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y7777ahj.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080420.230356.238029889.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:03:56 -0700 (PDT)")

David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> Moving the timestamp up to a higher level takes away some of the
> frequent use cases of timestamps, which is to detect things like the
> fact that it is taking a long time for packets to get from the
> top-level packet receive down to the actual protocol processing.

Is that really a frequent use case? It sounds more like a specialized
debugging situation. Most users are not network stack hackers :)

How about a sysctl to trigger between the two behaviours?
My guess would be that Jason's semantics are better for most systems.

> In fact, people are desiring timestamps which are _closer_ to when the
> device actually receives the frame rather than further away.

The other alternative was always to support loser time stamps especially
for networking. The reason people often complain about the time stamping
at all is when they use x86 systems with no globally reliable TSC which
has to fall back to slower southbridge timers and then they hurt.

But if you are willing to give away some of the guarantees of standard
gettimeofday (like global non monotonicity between CPUs) then you
could actually still use TSC even on those systems. And I don't
think global non monotonicity is really needed for a packet
time stamp ...

-Andi

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-04-21 10:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-21  5:34 [RFC 0/4] net: enable timestamps on a per-socket basis Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21  5:34 ` [RFC 1/4] net core: move timestamp functions Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21  5:35 ` [RFC 2/4] net core: let protocols implement SOCK_TIMESTAMP efficiently Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21  5:35 ` [RFC 3/4] ipv4: efficient SOCK_TIMESTAMP support for TCP, UDP, and raw sockets Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21  5:36 ` [RFC 4/4] af_packet: efficient SOCK_TIMESTAMP support Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21  6:03 ` [RFC 0/4] net: enable timestamps on a per-socket basis David Miller
2008-04-21  7:28   ` Jason Uhlenkott
2008-04-21 10:44   ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2008-04-21 10:59     ` David Miller
2008-04-21 11:43       ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21 11:51         ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87y7777ahj.fsf@basil.nowhere.org \
    --to=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=juhlenko@akamai.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).