[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529D8BC7.4050005@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:44:07 +0800
From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<brouer@...hat.com>, <jpirko@...hat.com>, <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net: sched: tbf: fix calculation of max_size
On 2013/12/3 12:59, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:26 +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>
>> + for (max_size = 0; max_size < MAX_PKT_LEN; max_size++)
>> + if (psched_l2t_ns(&q->rate, max_size) > q->buffer)
>> + break;
>> + if (--max_size <= 0)
>> + goto unlock_done;
>> +
>
> This seems dubious. With your new code, max_size < 65536
>
> Prior code had :
>
> for (n = 0; n < 256; n++)
> if (rtab->data[n] > qopt->buffer)
> break;
> max_size = (n << qopt->rate.cell_log) - 1;
>
> So we could have much bigger max_size.
>
> The reason I ask is that its possible to have qdisc_pkt_len(skb) being
> bigger than 65536, for TCP packets with low MSS value.
>
Hmmm, if qdisc_pkt_len(skb) is bigger than 65536, skb_is_gso(skb) is true,
it will go into tbf_segment(). If I am wrong, please point me out, thanks!
BTW, 65536 is suggested by Jesper, I'm a little uncertain about it. He is, too.
Do you or some other developers have stronger opinions on this?
Thanks!
Yang
--
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