From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: creating netdev queues on the fly?
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:35:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1320935713.2310.9.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1320933501.3967.68.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Le jeudi 10 novembre 2011 à 14:58 +0100, Johannes Berg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking about how we manage TX queues in wifi and right now
> we just split things up by access category for QoS purposes.
>
> However we have the issue that we might be pushing data to stations with
> completely different speeds. Onn wired, where our outgoing speed is
> essentially constant and some router/switch has to drop packets for the
> slow link:
>
> machine A === 1000mbps link ==== [switch] === 1000mbps === machine B
> |
> +--- 100mbps link --- machine C
>
> But on wireless we really transmit to slow stations only with a slow
> speed, so our outgoing speed differs. I think the scenario is quite
> different, also because the speed can vary obviously.
>
> So to get to my question: What if we could create netdev queues on the
> fly?
>
> The reason to do that is that we really don't want to reserve some 8000
> queues just because somebody could possibly try to create 2000
> connections (2007 is the theoretical max due to protocol restrictions)
> to the AP interface. We also don't really want to create a netdev for
> each peer (though you could implement it that way today).
>
> I looked at this and it doesn't seem terrible. Creating & destroying the
> queues might be tricky though. I think ndo_select_queue might return the
> queue pointer instead of an index, and then that queue could be used.
> The normal queues would still be in an array, with maybe a linked list
> of extra queues that were dynamically created. Obviously the driver
> would have to be able to manage that.
>
> Ultimately, all the frames will of course end up on the same four
> hardware queues again. But this would some better management, and piled
> up traffic to one station that suddenly dies wouldn't impact performance
> for all others as badly as it does today since we wouldn't let all those
> frames pile up on the hardware queues, they'd only get there with some
> mechanism that might take airtime into account.
>
> I think this might also make implementing reservation (tspec) easier.
> Not sure if anyone wants/needs that though.
>
>
> Am I completely crazy?
>
In term of qdisc management I believe its a bit complex if we start to
dynamically add netdev queues :)
My first idea would be to extend Qdisc management so that a device can
callback qdisc when a frame is finaly delivered / consumed / discarded.
We currently only have qdisc->enqueue() and qdisc->dequeue(), we could
add qdisc->deliver_callback(skb)
You keep devices as they are, with a netdevqueue per hardware queue.
Then, using a Qdisc like existing ones, but with a limit of
outstanding(given to device but not yet consumed) packets per class.
external tc classifier would deliver a hash/index depending on remote
station.
As a bonus you can get all the existing rate estimators / QOS /
shapers ...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-10 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-10 13:58 creating netdev queues on the fly? Johannes Berg
2011-11-10 14:35 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-11-10 16:26 ` Johannes Berg
[not found] ` <1320942369.3967.127.camel-8upI4CBIZJIJvtFkdXX2HixXY32XiHfO@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-10 17:00 ` Eric Dumazet
[not found] ` <1320933501.3967.68.camel-8upI4CBIZJIJvtFkdXX2HixXY32XiHfO@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-10 14:40 ` Helmut Schaa
[not found] ` <CAGXE3d-_RFgW_zwfX2vTBe1psXmgoBFO5pd5cAgtYo=Jwpddhw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-10 14:55 ` Denys Fedoryshchenko
2011-11-10 15:25 ` Dave Taht
[not found] ` <CAA93jw7ECQegWj6rpd48sbmDQUjorCYzXANXJSj0baHtxzC7EA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-11 11:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-11-11 11:42 ` Dave Taht
[not found] ` <CAA93jw7n1jYiWrnHOF0Zmzd0cVtadNhPSCpP5YqEdq_Q9opw5A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-11 11:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-11-12 9:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-11-10 14:47 ` Dave Taht
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=1320935713.2310.9.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--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