netdev - Priority/queueing on vitrual interfaces -- do virtual interfaces have a queue?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimxw2Kf2ztzrHLvvLYYIbQ0RwcqmfAdT9TidAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:36:25 +0200
From:	Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
	lartc@...lman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Priority/queueing on vitrual interfaces -- do virtual interfaces have 
	a queue?

Hi all,

I am using a HTB qdisc with one intermediate class and half a dozen
leaf classes. All leaf classes (other than the first) are allowed to
starve all classes below them (far from ideal, but a hard requirement).

Things work fine, but it seems that prio is more or less ignored.

I found one online source that claimed that due to the fact that
virtual interfaces don't have a buffer, their send queue is always
empty and thus prio would not do anything. Yet, I can hardly
believe that.

I would appreciate any input on this.

You can find my current config at [1]. Please, no discussions
about starving the lower classes. I know.

-- 
Richard

[1] http://paste.debian.net/80919/
--
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