[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SFQ: Reordering?

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SFQ: Reordering?
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 01:19:14 +0200
Cc: Asim Shankar <asimshankar@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050506230203.GI28419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <7bca1cb5050506145344d16b1e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <427BEAAE.409@xxxxxxxxx> <427BF3C4.1030105@xxxxxxxxx> <20050506230203.GI28419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050420 Debian/1.7.7-2
Thomas Graf wrote:
> We can maintain a second hash table and switch a pointer over to the
> new table but keep on dequeueing from the old one until it is empty.
> Anyways, any such behaviour should be made optional via a rtnetlink
> flag.

This also introduces unfairness. Packets of a flow could be only in
the new table while we're still working on the active table.
A proper solution to avoid reordering shouldn't be optional IMO,
perturbation is already optional.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>