From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6602 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2022 16:56:06 -0000 Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Oct 2022 16:56:06 -0000 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]) by 9front; Fri Oct 21 12:54:41 -0400 2022 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E1D5C00B1 for <9front@9front.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap52 ([10.202.2.102]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:54:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aqwari.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1666371280; x= 1666457680; bh=SQOYrrdL5vUSUOkSr0gI70Xydzpjp8p96CayP9kkOvA=; b=k UugzWJ3tpnVP3Crktv6K0k5BXv87bWLfNvxPRbAsCDgf4NDClqNS2cSdvP1Y60Ip dnwLpA4hYSLjfjKNkk1ddR4hmVrTvOYQdVJzPdoQRH6TbgbA1YntXfa3CTcCqKsu pUwSNl2cGSgmcw9khnMj4d8PINapMe9/KQAwYrRZYK3tu31nfHYTTliyl0gb0oKt qVHdC1Z7QF63AtHp2PMV1slgDf4LeKUoFoliW/QwYWhN2YM3wvJn7BKbbhIe1MPz GDn6TxzgYkQz6Ui6QxaHFy8Odd2mYkcAI8CQuGyxNV7FNtV0QMz0ocXqm6zoXzvX FgfIAAMQzUUM9Z9lZI7+g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1666371280; x=1666457680; bh=S QOYrrdL5vUSUOkSr0gI70Xydzpjp8p96CayP9kkOvA=; b=sWHc4UWeF5ZK1Vi/P P35ixvqWJOiWPlKkpyqn1Cb9zLw+cnujhU31X1RPTWrNt1BBhlurK0CiuIDskVy3 SsOVPMt7NyjmZt5qO+DIj79VknHPhL9LYnM0kgoJq572WIGmKbtUvIVAEfNvVYhE gUEuMk+9GKqQpp5eYKFfdh26Joj5nk4jsCHj8gy0DE5swMKpF6R9fREHsAtSueb/ ImUZPstmhoWALIKJ3meMqUgunnvbuiFQIHP8w4GEzSjjPww6jjFe6kLg9QQNjkIS RDthHue/OU8GqKdygAzGVUvJxGqf7CE8QBZ5V9V1SJwTM1GGInFRpJGHi6Haq5Dw W1e5A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeelkedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgse htqhertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfffgrvhhiugcutehrrhhohihofdcuoegurhhohiho segrqhifrghrihdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepleefuddvteegjedttdeihe etkedvtddvlefhvddtvddtleefgfefkedvvdfgjeeunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughrohihohesrghqfigrrhhirdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i624b4305:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id E564EC60091; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:54:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1047-g9e4af4ada4-fm-20221005.001-g9e4af4ad Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <9a2a70ea-388f-4b2f-bb9a-f401e2dc1934@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <106C8B7544ED8BDF80597DD9B0DA7A72@eigenstate.org> References: <106C8B7544ED8BDF80597DD9B0DA7A72@eigenstate.org> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:54:19 -0400 From: "David Arroyo" To: 9front@9front.org Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: mobile map/reduce interface Subject: Re: [9front] Speeding up snoopy(8) Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, at 12:04, ori@eigenstate.org wrote: > Quoth David Arroyo : >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, at 12:03, Sigrid Solveig Hafl=C3=ADnud=C3=B3tti= r wrote: >> > It would be nice to have a way to get monotonic timestamps in users= pace >> > without having to go into the kernel. For now, you can try nanosec = and >> > see if anything changes. >>=20 >> I tried using nanosec, and that was sufficient for snoopy to keep up >> with a bit rate of 1.6 Gbps, with no overflows. Thank you for the tip! > > ...should we replace the nsec() function with it? > > we may be able to stash nsec (and monotonic nsec?) at last > context switch into tos, and interpolate using cycles. I don't fully understand the tradeoffs in using nanosec() over nsec(). For packet captures, I specifically *don't* want time adjustments during a capture, so nanosec() being monotonic is a plus. It doesn't matter for snoopy currently, but is nanosec() thread-safe? It's keeping xstart in a static variable; would different threads have different xstarts, or could they step on each other if they call nanosec() at the same time? David