From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "Dave Täht" <d@taht.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] shaper team forming up
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:42:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1300164166.2649.70.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1300134277.2649.19.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 21:24 +0100, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
remove CC to bloat lists for now, adding David Miller to thread.
> Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 21:55 +0200, Jonathan Morton a écrit :
> > On 14 Mar, 2011, at 9:26 pm, Dave Täht wrote:
> >
> > > Over the weekend, Dan Siemons uncovered a possible bad interaction
> > > between ECN and the default pfifo_fast qdisc in Linux.
> > >
> > > http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2011/03/13/pfifo_fast-and-ecn/
> >
> > This seems to be more complicated that it appears. It looks as though
> > Linux has re-used the LSB of the old TOS field for some "link local"
> > flag which is used by routing.
> >
> > It's not immediately obvious whether pfifo_fast is using this new
> > interpretation though. If it isn't, the fix should be to remove the
> > RTO_ONLINK bit from the mask it's using on the tos field. The other
> > half of the mask correctly excludes the ECN bits from the field.
> >
>
> CC netdev, where linux network dev can take a look.
>
> I would say that this is a wrong analysis :
>
> 1) ECN uses two low order bits of TOS byte
>
> 2) pfifo_fast uses skb->priority
>
>
> skb->priority = rt_tos2priority(iph->tos);
>
> #define IPTOS_TOS_MASK 0x1E
> #define IPTOS_TOS(tos) ((tos)&IPTOS_TOS_MASK)
>
> static inline char rt_tos2priority(u8 tos)
> {
> return ip_tos2prio[IPTOS_TOS(tos)>>1];
> }
>
> No interference between two mechanisms, unless sysadmin messed up things
> (skb_edit)
>
>
David, it seems ip_tos2prio is wrong on its 2nd entry :
#define TC_PRIO_BESTEFFORT 0
#define TC_PRIO_FILLER 1
#define TC_PRIO_BULK 2
#define TC_PRIO_INTERACTIVE_BULK 4
#define TC_PRIO_INTERACTIVE 6
#define TC_PRIO_CONTROL 7
#define TC_PRIO_MAX 15
net/ipv4/route.c:170:#define ECN_OR_COST(class) TC_PRIO_##class
const __u8 ip_tos2prio[16] = {
TC_PRIO_BESTEFFORT, /* 0 : for flow without ECN */
ECN_OR_COST(FILLER), /* 1 : flow with ECN */
...
};
This means ECN enabled flows got TC_PRIO_FILLER (what the hell is
that ?)
pfifo_fast has :
static const u8 prio2band[TC_PRIO_MAX+1] =
{ 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0 , 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 };
So a non ECN enabled flow goes to band 1, while an ECN enabled one is in
band 2 (!). Thus, ECN enabled flows have a chance being droped more
often than non ECN flows. Thats not fair...
What do you think ?
Thanks
diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index 6ed6603..fabfe81 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static struct dst_ops ipv4_dst_ops = {
const __u8 ip_tos2prio[16] = {
TC_PRIO_BESTEFFORT,
- ECN_OR_COST(FILLER),
+ ECN_OR_COST(BESTEFFORT),
TC_PRIO_BESTEFFORT,
ECN_OR_COST(BESTEFFORT),
TC_PRIO_BULK,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-15 4:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87wrk1a4gx.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org>
[not found] ` <5BC42741-852B-4699-BA5D-D70B8D610D96@gmail.com>
2011-03-14 20:24 ` [Bloat] shaper team forming up Eric Dumazet
2011-03-15 4:42 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-03-15 5:27 ` ECN + pfifo_fast borked? (Was Re: [Bloat] shaper team forming up) Dave Täht
2011-03-15 6:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-15 17:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2011-03-15 18:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-15 18:37 ` Jonathan Morton
2011-03-15 19:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-15 22:51 ` [Bloat] shaper team forming up David Miller
2011-03-15 22:53 ` David Miller
2011-03-15 23:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-15 23:56 ` [PATCH] net_sched: fix ip_tos2prio Eric Dumazet
2011-03-16 1:54 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1300164166.2649.70.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=d@taht.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox