| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SFQ: Reordering? |
| From: | Asim Shankar <asimshankar@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 May 2005 16:53:51 -0500 |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=fXr4hLjzSxdvB+Ua1qbnUA4nINko7xjmeXKv2doAPYKNHCpWlPuF/618CV0dFIDy0lY9cap7b5yJ0pFMcJz4WrHCwFL/fM7HQTBz7Ikl2jwzMwNKPoKFP4KWcH59+kapvt+6ZZq+kMlN/t4FUdLF1Dsy52ML9+M+8Ah43mex/uU= |
| Reply-to: | Asim Shankar <asimshankar@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hi, I was looking through sch_sfq.c. From what I could make out, if the perturbation period is non-zero (say Xseconds), then ever X seconds, sfq_perturbation() is invoked. This changes the perturbation value that will be used by the hash function, however, packets already existing in the queue aren't rehashed. As a result, new packets being enqueued will have a different hash value and thus packet re-ordering will take place. I ran a quick test using netperf and tcpdump and seem to notice this re-ordering. 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) Thanks, -- Asim |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] textsearch infrastructure + skb_find_text(), Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 3c509 module and 2.6 kernel: not all NICs are recognized?, Michael Tokarev |
| Previous by Thread: | [-mm patch] net/ieee80211/: make two functions static, Adrian Bunk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: SFQ: Reordering?, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |