[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA93jw5_LN_-zhHh=zZA8r6Zvv1CvA_AikT_rCgWyT8ytQM_rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:33:55 -0700
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
To: "Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)"
<olivier.tilmans@...ia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Olga Albisser <olga@...isser.org>,
"De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)"
<koen.de_schepper@...ia-bell-labs.com>,
Bob Briscoe <research@...briscoe.net>,
Henrik Steen <henrist@...rist.net>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5] sched: Add dualpi2 qdisc
This is vastly improved code, thank you!
1) Since we're still duking it out over the meaning of the bits - not
just the SCE thing, but as best as I can
tell (but could be wrong) the NQB idea wants to put something into the
l4s fast queue? Or is NQB supposed to
be a third queue?
In those cases, the ecn_mask should just be mask.
2) Is the intent to make the drop probability 0 by default? (10 in the
pie rfc, not mentioned in the l4s rfc as yet)
3) has this been tested on a hw mq system as yet? (10gigE is typically
64 queues)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists