From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: netem: always adjust now/delay when not reordering Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:33:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1377030800.4226.89.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1377011469-26151-1-git-send-email-mailings@hupie.com> <1377011469-26151-2-git-send-email-mailings@hupie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ferry Huberts Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:40561 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751157Ab3HTUdW (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:33:22 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kl13so1151945pab.20 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:33:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1377011469-26151-2-git-send-email-mailings@hupie.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:11 +0200, Ferry Huberts wrote: > From: Ferry Huberts > > Not doing this (current behaviour) introduces reordering. > > The packet_len_2_sched_time call is the only thing that logically > depends on q->rate, so move the now/delay adjustment out of the if. > > Signed-off-by: Ferry Huberts > --- > net/sched/sch_netem.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) I would like you to show how this was tested, for example if we have a rate + delay + reorders. Thanks