[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090529134956.44104655@nehalam>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:49:56 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: Antonio Almeida <vexwek@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kaber@...sh.net, davem@...emloft.net, devik@....cz,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Vladimir Ivashchenko <hazard@...ncoudi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed
On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:46:43 +0200
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Antonio Almeida wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > Yes, but according to my assessment there should be "only" 50Mbit
> > > difference for this rate/packet size. Anyway, could you try a testing
> > > patch below, which should add some granularity to this rate table?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jarek P.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > include/net/pkt_sched.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/net/pkt_sched.h b/include/net/pkt_sched.h
> > > index e37fe31..f0faf03 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/pkt_sched.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/pkt_sched.h
> > > @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ typedef u64 psched_time_t;
> > > typedef long psched_tdiff_t;
> > >
> > > /* Avoid doing 64 bit divide by 1000 */
> > > -#define PSCHED_US2NS(x) ((s64)(x) << 10)
> > > -#define PSCHED_NS2US(x) ((x) >> 10)
> > > +#define PSCHED_US2NS(x) ((s64)(x) << 6)
> > > +#define PSCHED_NS2US(x) ((x) >> 6)
> > >
> > > #define PSCHED_TICKS_PER_SEC PSCHED_NS2US(NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > > #define PSCHED_PASTPERFECT 0
> >
> > It's better! This patch gives more accuracy to HTB. Here some values:
> > Note that these are boundary values, so, e.g., any HTB configuration
> > between 377000Kbit and 400000Kbit would fall in the same step - close
> > to 397977Kbit.
>
> Good news! So it seems there are no other reasons of this inaccuracy
> than too coarse granularity, but I have to check this yet. Alas there
> is needed something more than this patch, because it probably breaks
> other things like hfsc.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek P.
>
Why would it break hfsc, if it isn't already broken.
--
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