vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| > Don't try to reinvent the wheel. The code doesn't use per-state timeouts > for a reason. The assumption is that states normally don't timeout, e.g. > at least one packet modifies the state before the timeout. This means > that scanning all states is cheaper than individual timers. Actually it doesn't use per-state timeouts because the kernel timeout system was expensive at the time. About 3 years ago, when the timeout wheels got added, we were gonna try switching to per-state timeouts. Adaptive timeouts threw a bit of a wrinkle into that idea (and I started my plans for world domination by slacking) ..mike |