| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: SFQ: Reordering? |
| From: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 07 May 2005 00:46:28 +0200 |
| Cc: | Asim Shankar <asimshankar@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <427BEAAE.409@trash.net> |
| References: | <7bca1cb5050506145344d16b1e@mail.gmail.com> <427BEAAE.409@trash.net> |
| 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 |
Patrick McHardy wrote: > Asim Shankar wrote: > >>Should complete rehashing take place in sfq_perturbation(), or am I >>missing something? (I was looking at 2.6.9 and also took a cursory >>glance at 2.6.11 on lxr.linux.no) > > > I think we should rehash. Can you send a patch? Hmm wait, this is not so easy. We can't rehash by going over the buckets one by one. If we do so and we have a new clash of two flows previously contained in different buckets the packets will afterwards be sorted by flow in their new bucket. To retain fairness we need to iterate over all buckets containing packets and rehash them one packet per a bucket at a time. But this means we need lots of temporary storage to store the queues while rehashing. Can anyone thing of a better solution? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/net/ixgb/: possible cleanups, Ganesh Venkatesan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [-mm patch] fix IEEE80211_CRYPT_* selects, Adrian Bunk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: SFQ: Reordering?, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: SFQ: Reordering?, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |