*BSD News Article 93707


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.bri.connect.com.au!fjholden.OntheNet.com.au!not-for-mail
From: Tony Griffiths <tonyg@OntheNet.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: /kernel: in_rtqtimo: adjusted rtq_reallyold to 2400
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:10:25 +1000
Organization: On the Net (ISP on the Gold Coast, Australia)
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <33557881.172E@OntheNet.com.au>
References: <michelle-1404972141270001@monalisa.primelogic.com>
Reply-To: tonyg@OntheNet.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: swanee.nt.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
To: Michelle Brownsworth <michelle@primelogic.com>
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:39174

Michelle Brownsworth wrote:
> 
> That's the first cryptic message that appears on the console and in
> /var/log/messages, and others follow with decreasing values.  This kernel
> message is obviously an advisory that something is amiss, in the kernel's
> opinion, making it necessary to do an adjustment to compensate, since the
> dunderhead system administrator hasn't done it.

OK, you made me curious enough to go and take a peek at the code.  This
message originates from module ".../netinet/in_rmx.c" routine
in_rtqtimo() which gets run every 10 minutes (timeout() @ 600 seconds). 
Essentially, it appears to be trying to flush the routing cache of stale
entries (ie. those that have been there for 'rtq_reallyold' seconds but
havn't been used!).

> 
> I seem to recall that in_rtqtimo is a function in the routing table
> routines, but I can't put my hands on anything that will shed some light
> on what's wrong, and what I need to do to correct it.

Nothing...  It's simply an advisory that the value of rtq_reallyold is
being reduced by 1/3 of it's current value.  It starts at 60 * 60 (3600
seconds) so the first reduction reduces it to 2400 seconds and the next
to 1600, etc.  I believe that it keeps doing this until it reaches the
minimum value which is 10 seconds.  The idea is to keep the routing
cache to 128 entries or less.  If no entries are being flushed, then the
value of rtq_reallyold keeps getting reduced to try and force the issue!

> 
> Anyone having a handle on this esoterica who could point me in the right
> direction would receive a heaping helping of appreciation.

My advise is...  "DON'T PANIC!"  I've been ignoring this message for
several years now and nothing untoward has happened to my routing
tables.  Now that I've read the code, I can sleep even easier at night. 
;-)

Regards,
Tony