From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] QoS TBF and latency configuration misbehavior Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:36:03 +0000 Message-ID: <20100901063602.GA6285@ff.dom.local> References: <20100831210101.3c059a91@leibniz> <4C7D5EBD.103@gmail.com> <20100831214808.GA32141@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20100831223402.GA7101@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dan Kruchinin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger To: Alexey Kuznetsov Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:55949 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752511Ab0IAGgJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:36:09 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so5061345bwz.19 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100831223402.GA7101@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:34:02AM +0400, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Hello! Hi! > To Jarek: about the scripts. I do not think something will be broken > by fixing this error. Eventually, if someone used "latency", he meant > something about real latency. And even if the value was generated > using the same wrong logic as tc did, using correct formula would just > increase limit setting. As I wrote earlier, I'm more worried about configs based on experience, not logic. Dan's tests show there could be a difference, and I'm not sure users cared about the logic, since it wasn't questioned until now. Btw, there could be considered adding a new, alternative parameter, for this, like rlatency etc. if it's so crucial. And, of course, it's only my little "IMHO", I don't insist on anything. Thanks, Jarek P.