From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next v5 10/11] tbf: take into account gso skbs Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:46:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20130219164626.GC1506@minipsycho.orion> References: <1360663929-1023-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1360663929-1023-11-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1360687182.6884.5.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130217161803.GB1931@minipsycho.orion> <1361123663.19353.94.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130218095837.GA1566@minipsycho.orion> <1361290502.19353.136.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, j.vimal@gmail.com To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:39896 "EHLO mail-ee0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758462Ab3BSQqb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:46:31 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c50so3478865eek.30 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:46:30 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1361290502.19353.136.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 05:15:02PM CET, eric.dumazet@gmail.com wrote: >On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:58 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 06:54:23PM CET, eric.dumazet@gmail.com wrote: >> >On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > >> >> I'm going through this issue back and front and on the second thought, >> >> I think this patch might not be so wrong after all. >> >> >> >> "Accumulating" time in ptoks would effectively cause the skb to be sent >> >> only in case time for whole skb is available (accumulated). >> >> >> >> The re-segmenting will only cause the skb fragments sent in each time frame. >> >> >> >> I can't see how the bigger bursts you are reffering to can happen. >> >> >> >> Or am I missing something? >> > >> >Token Bucket Filter doesnt allow to accumulate tokens above a given >> >threshold. Thats the whole point of the algo. >> > >> >After a one hour idle time, you don't want to allow your device sending >> >a burst exceeding the constraint. >> >> You are right, therefore I said "not so wrong". Let me illustrate my >> thoughts. Here is a patch: >> >> Subject: [patch net-next RFC] tbf: take into account gso skbs >> >> Ignore max_size check for gso skbs. This check made bigger packets >> incorrectly dropped. Remove this limitation for gso skbs. >> >> Also for peaks, accumulate time for big gso skbs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko >> --- > >I am sorry, we can not do this accumulation. > >If we are allowed to send 1k per second, we are not allowed to send 10k >after 10 seconds of idle. > >Either we are able to split the GSO packet, and respect the TBF >constraints, either we must drop it. That's a shame. Would be easy this way, also applicable to act_police :/ About the gso_segment, do you see any cons doing that on enqueue path rather than dequeue? Thanks.