From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] htb: report overhead attribute
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:58:31 -0700
Message-ID: <1370354311.24311.205.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <20130529151330.22c5c89e@redhat.com>
	 <1370207755.24311.81.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <1370208781.24311.89.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <51ACB9FE.1020100@hp.com>
	 <1370274962.24311.156.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <20130604131147.2d357322@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"russell-tcatm@stuart.id.au" <russell-tcatm@stuart.id.au>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@redhat.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:60654 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751317Ab3FDN6d (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:58:33 -0400
Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mc8so282324pbc.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130604131147.2d357322@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 13:11 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 08:56:02 -0700
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 08:45 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> > 
> > > Is it (still) possible to have a negative overhead?
> > > 
> > > http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/speedmod-with-tc-atm-qos-patch-for-adsl.31541/
> > 
> > overhead always has been unsigned in the kernel.
> > 
> > What you describe is a userland hack in tc command.
> > (or a bug)
> 
> Rick is referencing Russell Stuart's patches, where a negative overhead
> was possible.
>  http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/tc-atm/#history
> 
> But my patches got accepted into the kernel, where a negative
> overhead was not possible. In retrospect, we should have supported a
> negative overhead.
> 
> A negative overhead *is* a valid use-case, and we should work towards
> supporting this. E.g. by changing the recent added "u16 overhead" in
> struct psched_ratecfg to be "s16" (ref [1]) ?
> 
> 
> [1] commit 01cb71d2d47 (net_sched: restore "overhead xxx" handling)
>  https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=01cb71d2d47b78354358e4bb938bb06323e17498
> 

Again, you describe something that Vimal patch didn't broke, and should
be addressed on net-next.

My concern was restoring the overhead attribute that Vimal broke, and
this one was unsigned 16bits.

Allowing a negative offset is not free, it adds a conditional test,
because (len + overhead) could be negative.

Please note that a negative offset is possible with the STAB infra.