Re: [lwip-users] tcp_tmr - TCP_TMR_INTERVAL

[Timmy Brolin]

You are right.

I'am actually a bit surprised that the timer is running at only 250ms 
intervals.. Could this be a performance bottleneck?
Are retransmissions not handled by the timers? That's a minimum 250ms 
penalty for every retransmission...

Timmy Brolin

Kieran Mansley wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:29 +0200, Timmy Brolin wrote:
>  
>
> > As long as TCP_TMR_INTERVAL is #defined  to the interval by which you 
> > actually call the timer function, any value should be fine. Anything 
> > below 250 or so should be fine.
> >    
>
> That may be what was intended with those defines, but the code doesn't
> use them that way (in 1.1.0 at least - I don't have 1.1.1 to hand to
> check that).  The tcp_fast_tmr() function is called every time tcp_tmr()
> is called, and the tcp_slow_tmr() function is called every other time.
> There is no check there to divide the required time by TCP_TMR_INTERVAL
> before deciding whether to invoke either the fast or slow timer
> functions.  This would be good idea though if people need the
> flexibility of calling tcp_tmr() more frequently.
>
> Kieran 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
>
>
>