Re: [PATCH net v3 1/2] net: sched: tbf: fix calculation of max_size

[Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>]

On 2013/11/19 17:38, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:25:38 +0800
> Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> commit b757c9336d63f94c6b57532(tbf: improved accuracy at high rates)
>> introduce a regression.
>>
>> With the follow command:
>> tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: tbf latency 50ms burst 10KB rate 30gbit mtu 64k
>>
>> Without this patch, the max_size value is 10751(bytes).
>> But, in fact, the real max_size value should be smaller than 7440(bytes).
>> Or a packet whose length is bigger than 7440 will cause network congestion.
>> Because the packet is so big that can't get enough tokens. Even all the tokens
>> in the buffer is given to the packet.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't like the commit message.  The real problem is the
> value in q->buffer, and that the userspace rate table cannot handle
> these high rates, which you don't mention.
> 
> I would write something like:
> 
> The kernel no longer uses the userspace provided rate table.  Thus, it
> is wrong to calculate max_size based on this rate table.  At high rates
> this rate table gets very inaccurate, which can lead wrong calculation
> of max_size.
> 
> Consequence of max_size being too large is severe, and cause packets
> being stalled in tbf_dequeue() because it cannot get enough tokens.
> The max_size guards against enqueuing packet sizes above q->buffer
> "time" in tbf_enqueue().
> 
> This patch fixes the calculation of max_size. By ... add desc ...
> perhaps also mention how it is connected to p->mtu (with is also a
> "time" value).
> 
> 
> The rest of the patch looks okay now, one point below though.

OK, change it in v4.
Thanks!

> 
> 
>> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_tbf.c b/net/sched/sch_tbf.c
>> index 68f9859..c194129 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/sch_tbf.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/sch_tbf.c
> [...]
>> @@ -339,30 +326,46 @@ static int tbf_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct nlattr *opt)
> [...]
>> +	for (n = 0; n < 65536; n++)
>> +		if (psched_l2t_ns(&q->rate, n) > q->buffer)
>> +			break;
>> +	max_size = min_t(u32, n, (256ULL << qopt->rate.cell_log) - 1);
> 
> I'm a little uncertain about, if using the 65536 constant is okay, or
> considered "bad style".

I'll use a MACRO to instead of this constant in v4.
Thanks!

> 
> I'm still a little confused/uncertain why we need the "qopt->rate.cell_log".
> 

Because we need max_size be smaller than mtu(user input in bytes).
E.g. if user inputs like this "...  burst 100KB rate 100mbit mtu 4095",
without this patch, max_size is 4095.
But with this patch, if don't use cell_log, max_size is 102400.
I think it's not correct, so I used cell_log here.