From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: codel: split into multiple files Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:37:05 -0600 Message-ID: <571F7D11.6070803@fb.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Michal Kazior , Return-path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:25176 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752511AbcDZOhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:37:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/26/2016 06:36 AM, Michal Kazior wrote: > On 26 April 2016 at 08:43, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On 4/26/16, Michal Kazior wrote: >>> On 26 April 2016 at 08:09, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I had a very quick view on net-next.git#master (up to commit >>>> fab7b629a82da1b59620470d13152aff975239f6). >>>> >>>> Commit in [1] aka "codel: split into multiple files" removed codel.h >>>> but [2] and [3] have relicts to it. >>>> Forgot to remove? >>> >>> codel.h was not removed. diffstat for codel.h is all red which I >>> presume is why you thought of it as removed, see: >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/tree/include/net/codel.h?id=d068ca2ae2e614b9a418fb3b5f1fd4cf996ff032 >>> >> >> [ CC Jens ] >> >> OK. >> So what are the plans in the future? >> Keep a "generic" codel.h (compatibility reasons?) for net or is it your split? > > I'm interested in re-using codel in mac80211 for wireless. cfg80211 > drivers may want to do that as well later. Even vendor drivers could > start to use it (I can dream :). > > I plan to re-spin my patches soonish re-based on the new codel.h/fq.h > approach. There's quite a few spins already[1]. > > >> AFAICS I have seen a codel-implementation in block.git#wb-buf-throttle. >> Does it make sense to have a more "super-generic" codel.h for re-use >> (not only for net and block)? >> Just a thought. > > Oh, I'm not really familiar with block and problems around it but it > sounds reasonable and interesting. It doesn't look like it blatantly > copies codel though (I did that in my initial mac80211 patches with > some adjustments, you can check that in the link[1] which you can > lookup via my patchset's cover letter[2]; I've based off of codel5[3] > back then). The block version is an adaptation, I guess you can say it pays homage to CoDel. But there are a sufficient amount of differences between networking and storage that I don't think a fully generic version is really feasible. My favorite thing to bring up is the fact that we don't have the luxury of dropping packets on the storage side... -- Jens Axboe