From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To: Zh-yuan Ye <ye.zh-yuan@socionext.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: okamoto.satoru@socionext.com, kojima.masahisa@socionext.com,
Zh-yuan Ye <ye.zh-yuan@socionext.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: cbs: Fix software cbs to consider packet
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:10:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lfnwfeyw.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200319075659.3126-1-ye.zh-yuan@socionext.com>
Hi,
Zh-yuan Ye <ye.zh-yuan@socionext.com> writes:
> Currently the software CBS does not consider the packet sending time
> when depleting the credits. It caused the throughput to be
> Idleslope[kbps] * (Port transmit rate[kbps] / |Sendslope[kbps]|) where
> Idleslope * (Port transmit rate / (Idleslope + |Sendslope|)) is expected.
> In order to fix the issue above, this patch takes the time when the
> packet sending completes into account by moving the anchor time variable
> "last" ahead to the send completion time upon transmission and adding
> wait when the next dequeue request comes before the send completion time
> of the previous packet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zh-yuan Ye <ye.zh-yuan@socionext.com>
> ---
You raise good points here.
What I am thinking is that perhaps we could replace 'q->last' by this
'send_completed' idea, then we could have a more precise software mode
when we take into account when we dequeue the "last byte" of the packet.
> net/sched/sch_cbs.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_cbs.c b/net/sched/sch_cbs.c
> index b2905b03a432..a78b8a750bd9 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_cbs.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_cbs.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ struct cbs_sched_data {
> int queue;
> atomic64_t port_rate; /* in bytes/s */
> s64 last; /* timestamp in ns */
> + s64 send_completed; /* timestamp in ns */
So, my suggestion is to replace 'last' by the 'send_completed' concept.
And as an optional suggestion, I think that changing the 'last' name by
something like 'last_byte' with a comment saying "estimate of the
transmission of the last byte of the packet, in ns" could be worth
thinking about.
Do you see any problems?
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-19 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-19 7:56 [PATCH net] net: cbs: Fix software cbs to consider packet Zh-yuan Ye
2020-03-19 17:10 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes [this message]
2020-03-23 0:28 ` ye.zh-yuan
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=87lfnwfeyw.fsf@intel.com \
--to=vinicius.gomes@intel.com \
--cc=kojima.masahisa@socionext.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okamoto.satoru@socionext.com \
--cc=ye.zh-yuan@socionext.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).