From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: force a fresh timestamp for ingress packets Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:26:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1292538363.2655.20.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1292428252.3427.342.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101216211744.GA2191@del.dom.local> <1292535039.2655.13.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101216220838.GB2191@del.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , Changli Gao , netdev , Patrick McHardy To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:60470 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855Ab0LPW0I (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:26:08 -0500 Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so45411wyb.19 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:26:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101216220838.GB2191@del.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le jeudi 16 d=C3=A9cembre 2010 =C3=A0 23:08 +0100, Jarek Poplawski a =C3= =A9crit : > Hmm... Do you expect more people start debugging SFQ or I missed your > point? ;-) Maybe such a change would be reasonable on a cloned skb? My point was to permit an admin to check his ingress shaping works or not. In this respect, netem was a specialization of a general problem. We had a prior discussion on timestamping skb in RX path, when RPS came in : Should we take timestamp before RPS or after. At that time we adde= d a sysctl. Not sure it was the right choice :-( I feel tcpdump (on TX side) should really display time of packet right before being given to device, but this is probably a matter of taste. Before commit 8caf153974f2 (net: sch_netem: Fix an inconsistency in ingress netem timestamps.), this is what was done.