netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: sched: add Flow Queue PIE AQM

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]

Message-ID: <CADAms0xgD+uzGUDJL35sAc+Yx9aS_5sNxXXSdCqebF4TkrzGpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 19:01:09 +0530
From:   Gautam Ramakrishnan <gautamramk@...il.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Mohit P . Tahiliani" <tahiliani@...k.edu.in>,
        "Sachin D . Patil" <sdp.sachin@...il.com>,
        Mohit Bhasi <mohitbhasi1998@...il.com>,
        "V . Saicharan" <vsaicharan1998@...il.com>,
        Leslie Monis <lesliemonis@...il.com>,
        Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: sched: add Flow Queue PIE AQM

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Gautam Ramakrishnan <gautamramk@...il.com> writes:
>
> > Flow Queue PIE packet scheduler
> >
> > This patch series implements the Flow Queue Proportional
> > Integral Controller (FQ-PIE) active queue management
> > algorithm. It is an enhancement over the PIE algorithm.
> > It integrates the PIE aqm with a deficit round robin
> > scheme.
> >
> > It is implemented over RFC 8033 aligned version of PIE.
> > In this patch, Little's law is used for queue delay
> > estimation like PIE. This patch doesn't yet have the
> > timestamp based queue delay estimator like freebsd, that
> > Dave Taht thinks is better.
> >
> > We are looking for suggestions on cleanups and
> > improvements for this patch.
>
> Is the fq_ part basically identical to fq_codel? Might make sense to
> share some code in that case; might not be a trivial refactoring,
> though...
>
> -Toke

The fq_ part is mostly the same, except for the batch dropping. But the
structure of flows are different. Any particular suggestions on the
refactoring?


-Gautam