netdev - Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:59:06 +0100
From:	Andrew Beverley <andy@...ybev.com>
To:	Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@...et.fi>
Cc:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>,
	Julien Vehent <julien@...uxwall.info>,
	"Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	netfilter <netfilter@...r.kernel.org>, hawk@...x.dk
Subject: Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 18:07 +0300, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> >>>> I was, in fact, an error in my ruleset. I had put the 'linklayer atm' at
> >>>> both the branch and leaf levels, so the overhead was computed twice,
> >>>> creating those holes in the bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>> I am seeing similar behaviour with my setup. Am I making the same
> >>> mistake? A subset of my rules is as follows:
> >>>
> >>> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root handle 1: htb r2q 1
> >>>
> >>> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb \
> >>>    rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit ceil ${DOWNLINK}kbit \
> >>>    overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- Here
> >>>
> >>> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb \
> >>>    rate 612kbit ceil 612kbit prio 0 \
> >>>    overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- And here
> >>>
> >>> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 parent 1:10 handle 4210: \
> >>>    sfq perturb 10 limit 50
> >>>
> >>> tc filter add dev ppp0 parent 1:0 protocol ip \
> >>>    prio 10 handle 10 fw flowid 1:10
> >>
> >> I removed the overhead option on the first leaf, and the speeds change
> >> to what I expect. However, the rules above are taken straight from the
> >> ADSL Optimizer project, which was the source of the original overhead
> >> patch for tc. So is the ADSL Optimizer project wrong?
> >
> > After looking at the HTB kernel code I believe that the ADSL  
> > Optimizer project is NOT wrong.  You should/must set the linklayer  
> > option on both the root class and leaf (else you would be charging  
> > the root/parent node too little).
> >
> 
> It's been while I looked at the linklayer/size-table code, but if I  
> remember right overhead is calculated with first linklayer packet sees  
> in qdisc. So when packet goes to leaf with 'linklayer atm', packet get  
> packet size with overhead for ATM and root linklayer is not used for  
> that packet. Because of this you can have leafs with different  
> overheads (pppoe, ipv6-tunnel, etc, with ) and all get right  
> overhead... ..
> 
> ..
> 
> ...Uh oh...
> 
> HTB still has linklayer/overhead of its own, I was talking about the  
> generic linklayer code that can be used with all qdiscs. Never mind,  
> sorry.

Ah, I hadn't come across the tc-stab functionality until now. So that
does exactly the same for all qdiscs as the original ATM patch does for
HTB? But they work slightly differently as you have alluded to above?

Andy


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html