| Re: [chrony-dev] SW/HW timestamping on Linux |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-dev Archives
]
- To: chrony-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chrony-dev] SW/HW timestamping on Linux
- From: Denny Page <dennypage@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:14:28 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=4d515a; t=1479269670; bh=Hgnt2dfapFZS2S0IdfJ3hHcineul67J4E36mDqqzFqo=; h=From:Content-type:MIME-version:Subject:Date:To:Message-id; b=I/xiyzHrjLsk9AKKJYpQHAWOIpGJa9rpsfgL2+84FyC/b5A6U74ngwerzm0e6UpmK POxZAC1d36Jy7tmX7MOFbxqH/9pXwKjBmLKucs6SGTyDPjgrrRCxIrtcGEyectJWTx +XXCi24/uBkfYj+Kj/lx35tA31DrZAvL1+zKc1klbu1rFGCP5QEQIzBR9UHnfD0N0C ZQCTCUxwq4xJ9EtUvxbbHded/UASMmI7uFoR1amNXNpqVHMhgedZU/cu2vp9aXhRlS c1Hv6nd81aszYkjGFosKQTa3L3qKsNExlJJ//8ZbI/XJwDNl6WVZFqN3d7fN4kMr8k EIauga21cnxCw==
The chip is actually a I354, which is slightly different than the I350, but I don’t think it matters much. I also have interfaces with I211 chips, and the ordering issue appears to happen there as well. I don’t think the sleep after the send is going to affect the order of the timestamp and response messages since both are requested at the point of the outbound send.
Denny
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 02:07, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:59:17PM -0800, Denny Page wrote:
>> I tested with a usleep(100) following the sendmsg() call. This didn’t appear to have any impact. Was the usleep() intended to influence the order of timestamp vs. server response messages?
>
> Yes, that was the idea. Could you try increasing the sleep interval to
> 1000 or maybe 10000? Anyway, I asked about this on the Intel
> development list:
>
> http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20161114/007226.html
--
To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "help" in the subject.
Trouble? Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.