From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: ingress policying for realtime protocol Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 18:47:16 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20150519211145.GA23134@pengutronix.de> <1432168240.4060.63.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= , netdev , Jamal Hadi Salim To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:32808 "EHLO mail-wg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754286AbbEUBrR (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 21:47:17 -0400 Received: by wgjc11 with SMTP id c11so70400690wgj.0 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 18:47:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1432168240.4060.63.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 16:46 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > >> There is very little to do on ingress side since there is no queue at all, >> not to mention priority, you could try ifb to see if it fits your need. > > Note that if the need is to police traffic, ifb is not really needed : > You really need to read Uwe's email before reply, he mentioned prio qdisc: "I wonder what's missing to get ingress policying more versatile to allow for example a prio qdisc or if there is some conceptual problem that I don't see."