On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:56:54 -0500
"Ritesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ritesh Kumar wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I recently saw the qdisc "tfifo" in the netem module
> > > (net/sched/sch_netem.c) when I migrated some of my patches from 2.6.14
> > > to 2.6.20. As I understand, tfifo helps in keeping the queue of
> > > packets sorted according to their "time_to_send". [tfifo was not
> > > present in 2.6.14 perhaps because arrival order of packets was always
> > > equal to the departure order]. However, tfifo uses a linear search in
> > > the packet queue to find where to enqueue the packet.
> > > Quite some time ago (2.6.14 era), I needed a similar functionality
> > > from the netem module and I ended up coding a pointer based min-heap
> > > for the same. I was wondering if the community was interested in using
> > > the min-heap implementation to replace the linear search
> > > implementation. I have tested the min-heap quite a few times and it
> > > seems to work.
> > > The implementation is slightly non-trivial because it uses
> > > pointers to maintain the heap structure instead if using good old
> > > fixed size arrays. I did this mainly so that the limit of the netem
> > > qdisc could be changed on the fly. However, because every sk_buff now
> > > needs two pointers for its children nodes, I added an extra
> > > (sk_buff*)next2 to struct sk_buff (sorry!). However, this can probably
> > > be changed to a pointer inside netem_skb_cb. Also, because I needed
> > > this for personal work and 2.6.14 didn't contain tfifo, I basically
> > > removed the embedded qdisc and made netem a classless qdisc with my
> > > min heap as the native "queue" (sorry again! :) )
> >
> > The tfifo qdisc has a limit, why not just allocate a fixed-size heap
> > based on that?
> >
> >
>
> The tfifo queue limit itself can be changed and that creates the
> problem. If we use a fixed heap (say implemented using a fixed size
> array) then we will have to copy over all pointers from the first
> array to a reallocated array whenever the queue limit is changed.
> In retrospect, moving just a few 10s of kilobytes of data doesn't seem
> that much of a problem... now I feel stupid having put so much effort
> :).
>
Tfifo is a special case because:
* timestamps are stored in skb->cb so it is only really usable inside
netem that adds timestamps.
* insertions are cheap because it walks backwards and netem usually has
tnext > tlast. Only if you have a huge jitter which causes massive
reordering
and that is unrealistic, would you see a problem.
You can always make a new qisc and since netem is classless use yours.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
