netdev - Re: [PATCH 7/6] Re: [PATCH 2/6] pkt_sched: sch_htb: Consider used jiffies in htb

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: <496B19F7.4060909@trash.net>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:22:47 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, devik@....cz,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/6] Re: [PATCH 2/6] pkt_sched: sch_htb: Consider used
 jiffies in htb_dequeue()

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:56:37AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Sorry, I dropped the ball on this one. I still think scheduling
>> a work-queue or something else running in process context to
>> kick the queue once the scheduler had a chance to run would
>> be a better solution. But Jarek's patches are an improvement
>> to the current situation, so no objections from me.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review Patrick. As I wrote before, I'm not against
> using a workqueue here: it's logically better, but I still think
> this place is rather exception, so I'm not convinced we should
> care so much adding better solution, but also some overhead when
> cancelling this workqueue. But if it really bothers you, please
> confirm, and I'll do it.

It doesn't bother me :) I just think its the technical better
and also most likely code-wise cleaner solution to this problem.
Cancellation wouldn't be necessary since an unnecessary
netif_schedule() doesn't really matter.

It you don't mind adding the workqueue, I certainly would prefer
it, but I'm also fine with this patch. I don't have a HTB setup
or a testcase for this specific case, otherwise I'd simply do it
myself.

> BTW, I wonder if adding the old "too many
> events" warning back wouldn't be more useful here.

It would be good to notify the user and also have some indication
for this case when looking into bug reports. A counter or a (single)
printk would both be fine.

--
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