From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] sch_sfq: allow big packets and be fair Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:17:06 +0000 Message-ID: <20101221121706.GC8813@ff.dom.local> References: <20101221101506.GA8149@ff.dom.local> <1292929037.2720.12.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101221113920.GB8813@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Patrick McHardy , netdev To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f43.google.com ([209.85.161.43]:46431 "EHLO mail-fx0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750816Ab0LUMRO (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:17:14 -0500 Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so4225346fxm.2 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:17:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101221113920.GB8813@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:39:20AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Now the check is performed at the beginning of sfq_dequeue(), to be able > > to charge a previously sent 'big packet' multiple times (faulty flow > > wont send a packet before passing xx rounds) > > > > I believe I just did the right thing. The "allot" is incremented when > > current flow "pass its round to next slot", and decremented when a > > packet is dequeued from this slot. Before being allowed to dequeue a > > packet, "allot" must be 'positive'. > > Simply try to check my examples before and after. There is no skipping > of a round now. It's a serious change. Somebody tried to avoid it at > all in the current implementation. You should also think about fairness > of normal (but different) size packets. Oops! You're right yet ;-) This skipping shouldn't happen with quantum bigger than max packet size, so this patch is OK. Sorry, Jarek P.