[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070510.141344.127196214.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: kaber@...sh.net
Cc: taka@...inux.co.jp, linux-net@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tbf scheduler: TSO support
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:39 +0200
> Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> > TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
> > work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
> > TSO packets will be discarded since the size can be larger than
> > the scheduler expects. But it won't cause serious problems
> > because the retransmitted packets can be passed.
> >
> > So I made the scheduler allow to pass TSO packets:
> >
> > - tbf_enqueue() accepts packets with any size if the netdevice
> > has TSO ability.
> >
> > - tbf_dequeue() can handle the packets whose size is larger than
> > the bucket, which keeps tokens.
> > Any packet, which may be TSO packet, can be sent if the bucket is
> > full of tokens. this may lead that the number of tokens in
> > the bucket turns into negative value, which means kind of debt.
> > But we don't have to mind it because this will be filled up
> > with tokens in a short time and it will turns into positive value
> > again.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this approach is the best. I appreciate any comments.
>
>
> I don't see why this is needed, the correct way to use TBF with TSO
> is to specify a larger MTU value, in which case it won't drop TSO
> packets.
Why should a user have to know anything in the world about TSO in
order to configure TBF properly? I don't think they should have
to at all.
-
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