From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
Cc: Joerg Pommnitz <pommnitz@yahoo.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does tc-prio really work as advertised?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:29:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <474C0DA5.3030004@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071127115849.GA3427@ff.dom.local>
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:54:10AM -0800, Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
>> Jarek,
>> this is all about outgoing packets, e.g. egress to use your word.
>> It doesn't matter whether the packets are originated locally or
>> whether the packets are forwarded from another host (I tried
>> both).
>>
>> To restate the problem: according to my observations the prio qdisc
>> (and probably pfifo_fast, but I couldn't observe this) does not prioritize
>> at all and always uses the band indicated by the first entry in the
>> priomap.
>>
>> By default the priomap looks like this:
>> qdisc prio 1: dev eth1 bands 3 priomap 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>>
>> there are 3 bands (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3). In theory the traffic should go through
>> the different bands according to the TOS value of the packets. My observation
>> is, that the traffic always uses the band pointed to by the first entry in the
>> priomap. This value is 1 by default, so all traffic goes through band 1:2.
>>
>> Now it's entirely possible that I did something stupid, but nobody came forward
>> to show me the error of my ways (neither here nor on the lartc list).
>>
>
> I don't think there could be anything stupid if something is maybe not
> enough documented. But, this really should work - just like you've
> found: TOS should be recalculated to skb->priority, and this should
> affect prio. You should only consider that this recalculation isn't
> done for all packets, but only forwarded ones (if I can remember, didn't
> miss something, and nothing changed later...). So, are you still sure
> you've tested such a case? (Btw., there are some other tools which can
> change this priority field, so I hope you don't use them too.)
It works fine here, I'm guessing that Jörg is using an old kernel
version that had a bug in prio classification without filters.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-27 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-27 10:54 AW: Does tc-prio really work as advertised? Joerg Pommnitz
2007-11-27 11:58 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-11-27 12:29 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-27 13:07 Joerg Pommnitz
2007-11-27 13:18 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-11-27 13:00 AW: " Joerg Pommnitz
2007-11-27 14:12 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-11-30 18:39 ` Michael Blizek
2007-11-27 9:28 Joerg Pommnitz
2007-11-27 9:58 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-11-23 14:47 Joerg Pommnitz
2007-11-26 22:25 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-11-27 6:46 ` Jarek Poplawski
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=474C0DA5.3030004@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=jarkao2@o2.pl \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pommnitz@yahoo.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).