From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] sch_htb.c consume the classes's tokens bellow the HTB_CAN_SEND level Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:11:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20091104121146.GA8578@ff.dom.local> References: <20091103100538.GC6718@ff.dom.local> <412e6f7f0911030518w7a5f02a4ue8a4b6539496dd8f@mail.gmail.com> <20091103230035.GA2352@ami.dom.local> <412e6f7f0911031753m4af1467fn1b0326bdf17fe48b@mail.gmail.com> <20091104082808.GA6224@ff.dom.local> <412e6f7f0911040116q6b25b705k83e5a45464698af1@mail.gmail.com> <20091104104245.GB6224@ff.dom.local> <412e6f7f0911040321o22c536fdid078f6d2225a90a0@mail.gmail.com> <20091104114922.GA8176@ff.dom.local> <412e6f7f0911040401g5a8d58b0yc8c1637d419094f2@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim , devik@cdi.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Changli Gao Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:41693 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753856AbZKDMLr (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:11:47 -0500 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so8778383bwz.21 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:11:51 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <412e6f7f0911040401g5a8d58b0yc8c1637d419094f2@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Changli Gao wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:21:48PM +0800, Changli Gao wrote: > >> > >> I don't think so. Although a class's tokens may be negative, but its > >> ctokens may be positive. Charging its tokens is to prevent its cmode > >> from being changed to HTB_CAN_SEND from HTB_CANT_SEND directly. > > > > I think, you should really better show some tests proving your patch > > is needed and doesn't affect a case I described, instead of trying to > > discuss the meaninig of all HTB variables here. > > > > I test it before sending it here, but it doesn't show any obvious > difference as Martin said, no worse and no better. Strange... How this patch could be needed or even "necessary", and do "no worse and no better" at the same time. > I don't know how to > construct a test to show you the bad effect you worry about. Any > suggestion about the test? E.g. something like I described, but only rates 50kbit and 100kbit instead of 5 and 10 packets/sec. Regards, Jarek P.