[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230531183323.eozihhbax4tzho6w@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 21:33:23 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 0/5] Improve the taprio qdisc's relationship with
its children
Has anyone received this message? I guess at least vger and kuba@...nel.org
rejected it, because I got this bounce email:
kernel.org suspects your message is spam and rejected it.
Error:
550 5.7.350 Remote server returned message detected as spam -> 554 5.7.1
Service unavailable; Helo command [EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com]
blocked using dbl.spamhaus.org; Error: open resolver;
https://www.spamhaus.org/returnc/pub/34.216.226.155
Message rejected by: smtp.kernel.org
Interestingly, if I click the link above, it says "This is not due to an
issue with your email set-up", so I'm not sure what to believe...
----- Forwarded message from Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> -----
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 20:39:23 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang
<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Vinicius Costa
Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli
<muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>, Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 0/5] Improve the taprio qdisc's relationship with
its children
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1
Prompted by Vinicius' request to consolidate some child Qdisc
dereferences in taprio:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/87edmxv7x2.fsf@intel.com/
I remembered that I had left some unfinished work in this Qdisc, namely
commit af7b29b1deaa ("Revert "net/sched: taprio: make qdisc_leaf() see
the per-netdev-queue pfifo child qdiscs"").
This patch set represents another stab at, essentially, what's in the
title. Not only does taprio not properly detect when it's grafted as a
non-root qdisc, but it also returns incorrect per-class stats.
Eventually, Vinicius' request is addressed too, although in a different
form than the one he requested (which was purely cosmetic).
Review from people more experienced with Qdiscs than me would be
appreciated. I tried my best to explain what I consider to be problems.
I am deliberately targeting net-next because the changes are too
invasive for net - they were reverted from stable once already.
Vladimir Oltean (5):
net/sched: taprio: don't access q->qdiscs[] in unoffloaded mode during
attach()
net/sched: taprio: keep child Qdisc refcount elevated at 2 in offload
mode
net/sched: taprio: try again to report q->qdiscs[] to qdisc_leaf()
net/sched: taprio: delete misleading comment about preallocating child
qdiscs
net/sched: taprio: dump class stats for the actual q->qdiscs[]
net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1
----- End forwarded message -----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists