Re: [PATCH] Rate should be u64 to avoid integer overflow at high speeds (>= ~35Gbit)

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:29:50 -0400
Bill Fink <billfink@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 02:01 -0400, Bill Fink wrote:
> > 
> > > The last time this was discussed appears to be (on 2011-03-28):
> > > 
> > > 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=130128741907282&w=2
> > > 
> > > where Maciej Żenczykowski argued that creating a new 64-bit
> > > Netlink attribute for this would be much more complex than for
> > > the IFLA_STATS64 support.  There was no reply.
> > > 
> > > Providing a new multiplier/shift parameter would be a simple
> > > way to extend support for higher rates, and would not break
> > > existing user space that doesn't require the higher rates.
> > > I imagine the user would not explicitly specify the multiplier/
> > > shift parameter, but would just normally specify the desired
> > > rate, and a newer tc would figure out what multiplier/shift
> > > to use if a high enough rate demanded it.  To maintain user
> > > space compatibility, the kernel should report back the same
> > > rate and multiplier/shift it was given, and the newer tc would
> > > convert it back to the user's originally specified rate.  Older
> > > user space that was fine with the ~34 Gbps rate limitation would
> > > always have the default multiplier of 1 or shift of 0 bits, and
> > > would see the exact same unmultiplied/unshifted rate it always
> > > did.
> > 
> > We already said no to such a hack. Maybe its not clear enough ?
> > 
> > netlink allows us to a proper way, and Thomas Graf explained how we
> > expect the thing to be done.
> > 
> > Yes, this is not a one liner patch, its a bit more of work, and its how
> > it will be done when someone does the job.
> 
> I've no problem with that since it is a cleaner solution, but
> one that requires significantly more work.  I was only arguing
> that the multiplier/shift approach was also a workable solution
> and should be simpler to implement.  But since there appears to
> be developer consensus that it's not a desired method, I'm fine
> with going along with that expert opinion.
> 
> 						-Bill

As others have said the multiplier shift approach is a not a workable
solution because it is likely to cause too many compatibility surprises.
Older kernels would ignore the multiplier and therefore not give the users
the effective rate they wanted.