From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: split classification and enqueue
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:23:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160622172344.GG10213@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXGX=jPO7q=W32o3X2_4ce5PbY2PuTMhkmhtGP6PXuH4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> >
> > This (unfinished!) hack splits classification and enqueue into
> > two steps.
> >
> > Before enqueueing the packet and *before* acquiring the root qdisc lock,
> > the new qdisc ->classify() function is invoked.
> >
> > This function -- much like enqueue in the current scheme -- looks up
> > a child class and/or determines the next qdisc where the packet needs
> > to be handled via the classifier action subsystem.
> > Then it invokes the new ->classify() hook of the child, which can repeat
> > until the leaf qdisc is reached.
>
> Then how is the atomicity guaranteed? One of the important
> purposes of the qdisc lock is to guarantee the atomicity of any
> change of in the whole hierarchy, i.e., qdisc/class/filter/action.
Not in this PoC, but I think that this could be solved e.g. by adding a
sequence counter that gets sampled pre-classify, we'd then only have to
check post-aquiring the root lock if its unchanged. If not, some
class/filter, etc changed and we can just drop skb (or re-do the
classification, but I dislike such loops).
Only config changes would increment the counter, so it should not be
a lot of overhead.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-22 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-22 10:03 [PATCH RFC] sched: split classification and enqueue Florian Westphal
2016-06-22 17:05 ` Cong Wang
2016-06-22 17:23 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2016-06-22 17:29 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-06-22 17:41 ` Florian Westphal
2016-06-22 18:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160622172344.GG10213@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).