Hal Murray:
>As much as I'd like to clean up this area, I think we should put it on the
>back burner for now.
What makes it a better idea to wait?
>There is a slightly related area that needs cleaning up. There are no
>externally visible impacts so there is no reason not to do it. I don't have
>a good tag. Maybe RECVBUF.
>
>The current code has a queue of free buffers. When a packet arrives, the IO
>code gets a buffer, reads in the data, and puts it on the work queue.
>Another loop takes buffers off the work queue and processes them. The
>process-it code puts the buffer back on the free queue.
>
>All that queuing stuff is wasted effort. It made sense back when the code
>read the data is a signal handler to get better arrival timing. We now get
>good timing from the kernel. Bouncing around on queues isn't doing anything
>other than keeping the CPU warm.
>
>There may be some rough edges with refclocks. They will be easy to fix.
I agree. You've complained about this before and I think you were
right that time, too.
Are you interested in doing this yourself?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
When all government ...in little as in great things... shall be drawn to
Washington as the center of all power; it will render powerless the checks
provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive
as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
