From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] rps: selective flow shedding during softnet overflow Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:52:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20130423145222.5b696d0c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1366749094-5982-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <20130423142333.15479dfa@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <1366753063.8964.14.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Willem de Bruijn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:61291 "EHLO mail-pd0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757329Ab3DWVw2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:52:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p11so693576pdj.22 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:52:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1366753063.8964.14.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:37:43 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 14:23 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > What about just having a smarter ingress qdisc? > > What are your ideas ? > > Setting ingress qdisc on linux is no fun, and not scalable. > > Its ok for playing with netem and low bandwidth. > > I just don't want to get tied down to one hard coded policy. User seem have different ideas about what constitutes a flow and what policy for drop should be. Existing ingress qdisc is inflexible and ifb is a pain to setup and adds another queue transistion.