[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091202103204.GA7724@ff.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:32:04 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: xiaosuo@...il.com, hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
martin.devera@....cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sch_htb: ix the deficit overflows
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:20:17AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:10:20 +0000
>
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:26:33PM +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
> >> And
> >> if we use IMQ to shape traffic, the skb will be defragmented by
> >> conntrack, and its size will be larger than MTU.
> >
> > IMQ is a very nice thing, but it's considered broken as well, so it
> > can't be the reason for changing HTB.
>
> If you don't like IMQ, fine. Simply consider TSO and GSO as another
> set of mechanisms that can introduce this condition.
>
> Because we toss large SKBs all over the strack quite freely,
> protections like those suggested by Changli make perfect sense.
>
> We really don't have an MTU for packets within our stack any more.
> The code, by default, need to be able to handle anything.
Alas, an MTU is still a crucial parameter for some schedulers. Anyway,
I hope Changli wasn't mislead to treat my private opinions in this or
any other thread as decisive. Otherwise, I'm sorry.
Jarek P.
--
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