From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
To: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: Ranjit Manomohan <ranjitm@google.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net,
lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:07:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080911000726.GM20815@postel.suug.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830809101651u79a0efb7y8fa7288de6e48c8a@mail.gmail.com>
* Paul Menage <menage@google.com> 2008-09-10 16:51
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> wrote:
> >
> > That's argueable I guess. Likely or not, it doesn't make sense to
> > add such restrictions if not required, especially not when it is
> > trivial to just look at the cgroup of the task directly.
>
> Isn't a very large fraction of outgoing network traffic driven from
> net_tx_action(), which doesn't execute in the context of the sending
> process? Or am I missing something?
net_tx_action() dequeues from the qdisc. The classification is done
before the packets is enqueued onto the qdisc.
A special case exists when the packets needs to be requeued, in this
case the enqueue() is done in softirq context but it should not invoke
the classifier again if I remember correctly.
> You claimed "In the most common case, the packet is not queued before
> it hits the qdisc so this takes away a lot of complexity and is very
> fast but should still be sufficient.". But is that really true on a
> system where the network is busy? (Which is after all exactly the case
> where you care about accurate traffic accounting/policing)
To my best knowledge it is, otherwise I wouldn't say it. Feel free to
prove me wrong.
F.e. it doesn't work if an ifb device is added to egress between
the user and the cgroup classifier. That's what I mean with common
cases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-11 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-10 17:42 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 22:01 ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 22:56 ` Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 23:00 ` David Miller
2008-09-10 23:14 ` Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 23:04 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:24 ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 23:31 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:45 ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 23:51 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-11 0:07 ` Thomas Graf [this message]
2008-09-11 0:09 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:53 ` Paul Menage
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-08-22 0:55 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-08-22 2:11 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-24 23:35 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-07-18 21:28 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-07-21 9:26 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-21 14:04 ` Patrick McHardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080911000726.GM20815@postel.suug.ch \
--to=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ranjitm@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®