On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Vitja Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> 2013/8/23 Davide Italiano :
>>>
>>> I think that for socket's timeouts it's ok to have a HZ-precision. It
>>> would be much more important to implement high-precision timeouts fo
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, August 26, 2013 3:05:06 pm John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Monday, August 26, 2013 2:23:44 pm Davide Italiano wrote:
>> > Please consider the following patch:
>> > http://people.freebsd.org/~davide/review/socket_timeout.diff
>> > I've tes
On Monday, August 26, 2013 3:05:06 pm John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, August 26, 2013 2:23:44 pm Davide Italiano wrote:
> > Please consider the following patch:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~davide/review/socket_timeout.diff
> > I've tested it and it works OK. I got a timeout which is ~= 25ms usi
2013/8/26 Davide Italiano :
> Please consider the following patch:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~davide/review/socket_timeout.diff
> I've tested it and it works OK. I got a timeout which is ~= 25ms using
> the testcase provided by the user.
> The only doubt I have is about the range check, I've chan
On Monday, August 26, 2013 2:23:44 pm Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, August 23, 2013 9:53:12 am Davide Italiano wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2013/8/23 Davide Italiano :
>
> I think that for socket's timeouts it's ok to have a HZ-precision. It
> would be much more important to implement high-precision timeouts for
> select() and friends, if it's not done yet (sorry I'm running 9.1)
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, August 23, 2013 9:53:12 am Davide Italiano wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> >> 2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
>> >> > On Thursday, August 22
On Friday, August 23, 2013 9:53:12 am Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
> >> 2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
> >> > On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:18:48 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
> >> >> 2013/8/21 Jo
2013/8/23 Davide Italiano :
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
>>> > On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:18:48 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> >> 2013/8/21 John Baldwin :
>>> >> > On Monday, Augu
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
>> > On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:18:48 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> >> 2013/8/21 John Baldwin :
>> >> > On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:13:02 pm Daniel Eisc
On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:27:58 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
> > On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:18:48 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
> >> 2013/8/21 John Baldwin :
> >> > On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:13:02 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
2013/8/22 John Baldwin :
> On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:18:48 am Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2013/8/21 John Baldwin :
>> > On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:13:02 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yes! Please file a PR!
>> >>
>> >> This sorta implies t
On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:13:02 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > Yes! Please file a PR!
>
> This sorta implies that both are acceptable (although,
> the Linux behavior seems more desirable).
>
>http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=369
No, that
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Yes! Please file a PR!
This sorta implies that both are acceptable (although,
the Linux behavior seems more desirable).
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=369
On 19 August 2013 12:33, Vitja Makarov wrote:
Hi!
Recently I was playing with sma
Yes! Please file a PR!
-adrian
On 19 August 2013 12:33, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Recently I was playing with small socket timeouts. setsockopt(2)
> SO_RCVTIMEO and found a problem with it: if timeout is small enough
> read(2) may return before timeout is actually expired.
>
> I was un
Hi!
Recently I was playing with small socket timeouts. setsockopt(2)
SO_RCVTIMEO and found a problem with it: if timeout is small enough
read(2) may return before timeout is actually expired.
I was unable to reproduce this on linux box.
I found that kernel uses a timer with 1/HZ precision so it
16 matches
Mail list logo