netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/sched: add skbprio scheduler

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

Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:36:27 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Michel Machado <michel@...irati.com.br>,
        Nishanth Devarajan <ndev2021@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cody Doucette <doucette@...edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/sched: add skbprio scheduler

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:51 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Well, it would help if you didn't cut out key parts of my words.

Sorry about it, please allow me to copy and paste all of your words
here:

"Yes, but Michel wants to drop from other lower priorities if needed,
and that's not possible if you handle the limit already in a child
qdisc as they don't know about their siblings. The idea in the example
above is to discard it from whatever lower priority is needed, then
queue it. (ok, the example missed to check the priority level)"

So from your own words, you agreed "the idea in the example"
is not what Michel wants, because "is to discard it from whatever
lower priority is needed", as "Michel wants to drop from other lower
priorities if needed".

You also agreed Michel's requirement is not possible (to implement
in sch_prio) because "you handle the limit already in a child qdisc
as they don't know about their siblings" is also true.

Based on the above, I said it "disproves your point of adding a flag
to sch_prio".

What am I missing?

>
> >
> > What am I missing here?
> >
> > Are you go further by suggesting moving the limit out of prio?
> > Or are you going to expand your definition of "adding a flag"?
> > Perhaps two flags? :)
> >
> > I am very open for discussion to see how far we can go.
>
> I am not keen on continuing this discussion if you keep twisting my
> words just for fun.

No, I am trying to understand seriously about what you suggest here.

Please be patient! I know I am stupid!!!! :)

Thanks!