From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Schiller Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: hdlc_x25: Use qdisc to queue outgoing LAPB frames Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:56:10 +0100 Message-ID: <3f67b285671aaa4b7903733455a730e1@dev.tdt.de> References: <20210127090747.364951-1-xie.he.0141@gmail.com> <20210128114659.2d81a85f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Xie He Cc: Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" , Linux X25 , Linux Kernel Network Developers , LKML , Krzysztof Halasa On 2021-01-28 23:06, Xie He wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:47 AM Jakub Kicinski > wrote: >> >> Noob question - could you point at or provide a quick guide to >> layering >> here? I take there is only one netdev, and something maintains an >> internal queue which is not stopped when HW driver stops the qdisc? > > Yes, there is only one netdev. The LAPB module (net/lapb/) (which is > used as a library by the netdev driver - hdlc_x25.c) is maintaining an > internal queue which is not stopped when the HW driver stops the > qdisc. > > The queue is "write_queue" in "struct lapb_cb" in > "include/net/lapb.h". The code that takes skbs out of the queue and > feeds them to lower layers for transmission is at the "lapb_kick" > function in "net/lapb/lapb_out.c". > > The layering is like this: > > Upper layer (Layer 3) (net/x25/ or net/packet/) > > ^ > | L3 packets (with control info) > v > > The netdev driver (hdlc_x25.c) > > ^ > | L3 packets > v > > The LAPB Module (net/lapb/) > > ^ > | LAPB (L2) frames > v > > The netdev driver (hdlc_x25.c) > > ^ > | LAPB (L2) frames > | (also called HDLC frames in the context of the HDLC subsystem) > v > > HDLC core (hdlc.c) > > ^ > | HDLC frames > v > > HDLC Hardware Driver @Xie: Thank you for the detailed presentation. > >> Sounds like we're optimizing to prevent drops, and this was not >> reported from production, rather thru code inspection. Ergo I think >> net-next will be more appropriate here, unless Martin disagrees. > > Yes, I have no problem in targeting net-next instead. Thanks! I agree.