netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] netem: fix logic bug in reorder conditional

To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netem: fix logic bug in reorder conditional
From: Julio Kriger <juliokriger@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:27:44 -0300
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netem@xxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Y0rYAGOAOWYeTwa7q6/HfcfyiD4MoRwBDgilZqn3eYCJZZuBgrkeSVik/ByqOH7Ck9AAiOHqZmWHTubTXEwJSKK2SrVtr232FNtACa3/xXt+oAy/omk0heq58B1YEdSuyoB4rd0LTazSLdAI3mpdo0qAfI07s4q6W5qsBUf3rRo=
In-reply-to: <20050524095707.678f77ba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050519151254.79afe7e7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <682bc30a05052116005bc813a2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050523104342.78b1032d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <682bc30a050523135534b38b8b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050523140055.127f1a9f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <682bc30a050524084136fa2fe3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050524095707.678f77ba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Julio Kriger <juliokriger@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 5/24/05, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:41:11 -0300
> Julio Kriger <juliokriger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > 2) If I set latency = 50ms and a jitter = 300ms, tabledist can give me
> > > > a negative number. This value is addes to cb->time_to_send, so it
> > > > could change it to a negative value. Should we only accept positives
> > > > number before add it to cb->time_to_send? or will
> > > > q->qdisc->enqueue(skb, q->qdisc) put the package on the queue in a
> > > > special way so it will be handled "before" other packages alrealy on
> > > > the queue but with gretaer time_to_send?
> > >
> > > probably should bound the value to 0 before the addition, to avoid large
> > > wraparound problems, but since enqueue checks for for time it will work
> > > as long as delta less than 2^32/2.
> > >
> >
> > I think the value should be restricted to be positive and greater than
> > zero. Becuase if a negative number is allowed we will be "losing"
> > packages to be reordered, hence we will not be reordering, say 25%, of
> > packages instead we will be reordering about 15%.
> > In other words, packages that should be reordered will not be
> > reordered because its new time to send will be the same as the old
> > time to send.
> > Regards,
> > Julio
> 
> The problem is that the user specification (latency 50ms +/- 300ms with 
> reordering)
> is problematic. Just like specifying reordering without delay (and a fast 
> connection).

I agree with you. Maybe changing the actual parameters to a "range"
could be a better solution. Say "I want delay a package between 50 and
300 ms with correlation of 50% and normal distribution". The code
should not change too much, I think.

Regards,
Julio


-- 
----------------------------
Julio Kriger
mailto:juliokriger@xxxxxxxxx


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