From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>,
lartc <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
Subject: Re: Qdisc requeue should be void?
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:47:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <428A5874.8020806@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050513105754.2e7cc243@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net>
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> There is an design problem with the qdisc interface that causes qlen related bugs
> in netem, tbf, and other qdisc's that peek at the top of the queue. The problem is
> that requeue needs to be called from the dequeue function but requeue can fail.
> If requeue fails, then the calling qdisc can not properly handle the error. If it
> returns NULL, then the parent's expectation about qlen gets messed up.
>
> Example:
>
> prio (qlen = 1)
> skb = netem dequeue
> skb = htb dequeue
> ... decides not to send this skb now
> htp requeue(skb) fails
> ?? what now
> --netem.qlen // := 0
> return NULL
> skb is NULL
>
> at this point prio qlen is 1 but underlying queue's are empty.
>
> My proposal is to require requeue to always succeed and change it to be
> void instead of returning int.
Perhaps we should add a ->peek() operation which guarantees that the
next dequeued packet is the one peeked at. This would also help with
a second problem resulting from requeueing in at least TBF and HFSC.
TBF looks at a packet and if it can't be sent immediately calculates
the delay from the packet's length. HFSC does the same to calculate
the deadline for a class. Both assume the next packet dequeued from
the underlying qdisc is the one requeued, which is only true with
non-reordering qdiscs. Adding a peek-operation increases the worst-case
delay by one maximum sized packet transmission time, but otherwise
these qdiscs can't make proper use of reordering qdiscs like SFQ
at all.
Regards
Patrick
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-17 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-13 17:57 Qdisc requeue should be void? Stephen Hemminger
2005-05-17 20:47 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
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=428A5874.8020806@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=hadi@znyx.com \
--cc=lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/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).