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

[Bill Fink <billfink@mindspring.com>]

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