Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:07:44 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Ermal Lu?i <eri@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATH] ALTQ(9) codel algorithm implementation Message-ID: <20130614100744.GS12443@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <20130614100828.GA48119@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <CAPBZQG0XDmybC5tzchFrcf3TZC7uJ0VcKSX-cVMJ%2BsMZUUqWVg@mail.gmail.com> <20130614095125.GQ12443@FreeBSD.org> <20130614100828.GA48119@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi, On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:08:28PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> > I'm afraid we can't grow mbuf packet header with 8 bytes just to satisfy L> > the ALTQ codel algo, which would definitely have a limited usage among L> > FreeBSD users. Thus, "enqueue_time" should go into mbuf_tags(9) not into L> > mbuf packet header. L> L> not to take positions one way or the other, but getting and releasing L> a tag on every packet is going to kill performance. Does ALTQ care about performance? L> If i remember well, 2-3 years ago at bsdcan there was discussion L> (and mention of some pending work, jeffr maybe ?) L> on providing some leading space in the mbuf so one could put there L> tags (e.g. ipfw and dummynet ones) without having to allocate them. L> Not sure where is this. I even tried to prototype that. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130614100744.GS12443>