netdev - Re: qdisc spin lock

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:54:14 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Michael Ma <make0818@...il.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qdisc spin lock

On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 15:46 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
> >> really have multiple interfaces...
> >>
> >> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to
> >> different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth limit if I
> >> understand correctly, which seems to be less convenient compared with
> >> a solution purely within HTB.
> >>
> >> I assume that with this solution I can still share qdisc among
> >> multiple transmit queues - please let me know if this is not the case.
> >
> > Note that this MQ + HTB thing works well, unless you use a bonding
> > device. (Or you need the MQ+HTB on the slaves, with no way of sharing
> > tokens between the slaves)
> >
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bb1d912323d5dd50e1079e389f4e964be14f0ae3
> >
> > bonding can not really be used as a true MQ device yet.
> >
> > I might send a patch to disable this 'bonding feature' if no slave sets
> > a queue_id.
> >
> >
> So there is no way of using this MQ solution when bonding interface is
> used, right? Then modifying HTB might be the only solution?

I probably can submit a bonding patch very soon if there is interest.

Modifying HTB is way more complicated :(