[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45B7F482.7040703@trash.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:06:26 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Russell Stuart <russell-tcatm@...art.id.au>
CC: hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL
(kernel)
Russell Stuart wrote:
> Yuk! Now the user has to say whether he wants to use
> STAB's or not? Currently, apart from some debugging
> params to tc, the user isn't even aware that the
> traffic control is implemented in terms of RTAB's.
> That is how it should be - it is an implementation
> detail.
Of course he has to, just like your "atm" parameter. In case
of stabs it would be something like "stab atm".
>>I think this is a different problem. If you replace RTABs
>>by STABs you again can't use it for anything that is only
>>interested in the size, not the transmission time (HFSC,
>>SFQ, ...).
>
>
> I was a little too brief.
>
> The comment stems from the observation that in all
> current implementations:
>
> const A_CONSTANT;
> for (i = 0; i < 256; i += 1)
> assert(RTAB[i] == STAB[i] * A_CONSTANT);
>
> Ergo, if in addition to implementing STAB as you
> plan to, A_CONSTANT was shipped to the kernel then
> RTAB could be replaced.
At least look at the patch I sent. STAB mapping is _not_ a
multiplication by a constant (which wouldn't be able to
express minimum packet size or padding to multiples of cell
sizes).
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists