Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be>:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:37:43PM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
> >
> > >> OTOH, if the OS is time stamping packets, and PPS, for the ntpd daemon
> > >> then the daemon can tolerate 'some' jitter.
> >
> > > In normal operation we can expect lots of pairs of small allocations at
> > > UDP
> > > datagram sizes with deallocation fairly rapidly thereafter. So the heap
> > > will
> > > have lots of churn, which is bad...
> >
> > We don't care about the timing in most of the code. The only critical
> > section is the chunk between grabbing the time and sending the packet.
> > That
> > chunk is likely to involve crypto.
> >
> > We could fix that with another packet. The idea is that you get a time
> > stamp
> > from the kernel on the transmit side. Then you have to send another packet
> > to get that time stamp to the other end.
>
> Didn't the support for that get removed? Or am I confusing it with
> something else?
I think you are, and no blame attaches. What Hal is suggesting sounds a bit
like
interleave mode and drivestamps.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
