2016-04-15 15:54 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 15:46 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: >> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: >> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so >> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't >> >> really have multiple interfaces... >> >> >> >> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to >> >> different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth limit if I >> >> understand correctly, which seems to be less convenient compared with >> >> a solution purely within HTB. >> >> >> >> I assume that with this solution I can still share qdisc among >> >> multiple transmit queues - please let me know if this is not the case. >> > >> > Note that this MQ + HTB thing works well, unless you use a bonding >> > device. (Or you need the MQ+HTB on the slaves, with no way of sharing >> > tokens between the slaves) >> > >> > >> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bb1d912323d5dd50e1079e389f4e964be14f0ae3 >> > >> > bonding can not really be used as a true MQ device yet. >> > >> > I might send a patch to disable this 'bonding feature' if no slave sets >> > a queue_id. >> > >> > >> So there is no way of using this MQ solution when bonding interface is >> used, right? Then modifying HTB might be the only solution? > > I probably can submit a bonding patch very soon if there is interest.
Would definitely appreciate that. If you can share the patch it will be helpful as well. Let me know if I can help with this... > > Modifying HTB is way more complicated :( > > >
