netdev - Re: Netem tfifo implementation

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]

Message-ID: <20070302130943.4920d649@freekitty>
Date:	Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:09:43 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ritesh Kumar" <ritesh@...unc.edu>
Cc:	"Patrick McHardy" <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Netem tfifo implementation

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:56:54 -0500
"Ritesh Kumar" <ritesh@...unc.edu> wrote:

> On 3/2/07, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
> > Ritesh Kumar wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >    I recently saw the qdisc "tfifo" in the netem module
> > > (net/sched/sch_netem.c) when I migrated some of my patches from 2.6.14
> > > to 2.6.20. As I understand, tfifo helps in keeping the queue of
> > > packets sorted according to their "time_to_send". [tfifo was not
> > > present in 2.6.14 perhaps because arrival order of packets was always
> > > equal to the departure order]. However, tfifo uses a linear search in
> > > the packet queue to find where to enqueue the packet.
> > >    Quite some time ago (2.6.14 era), I needed a similar functionality
> > > from the netem module and I ended up coding a pointer based min-heap
> > > for the same. I was wondering if the community was interested in using
> > > the min-heap implementation to replace the linear search
> > > implementation. I have tested the min-heap quite a few times and it
> > > seems to work.
> > >    The implementation is slightly non-trivial because it uses
> > > pointers to maintain the heap structure instead if using good old
> > > fixed size arrays. I did this mainly so that the limit of the netem
> > > qdisc could be changed on the fly. However, because every sk_buff now
> > > needs two pointers for its children nodes, I added an extra
> > > (sk_buff*)next2 to struct sk_buff (sorry!). However, this can probably
> > > be changed to a pointer inside netem_skb_cb.  Also, because I needed
> > > this for personal work and 2.6.14 didn't contain tfifo, I basically
> > > removed the embedded qdisc and made netem a classless qdisc with my
> > > min heap as the native "queue" (sorry again! :) )
> >
> > The tfifo qdisc has a limit, why not just allocate a fixed-size heap
> > based on that?
> >
> >
> 
> The tfifo queue limit itself can be changed and that creates the
> problem. If we use a fixed heap (say implemented using a fixed size
> array) then we will have to copy over all pointers from the first
> array to a reallocated array whenever the queue limit is changed.
> In retrospect, moving just a few 10s of kilobytes of data doesn't seem
> that much of a problem... now I feel stupid having put so much effort
> :).
> 

Tfifo is a special case because:
  * timestamps are stored in skb->cb so it is only really usable inside
    netem that adds timestamps.
  * insertions are cheap because it walks backwards and netem usually has
    tnext > tlast.   Only if you have a huge jitter which causes massive reordering
    and that is unrealistic, would you see a problem.

You can always make a new qisc and since netem is classless use yours.


-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
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