> On Aug 21, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: > >>> The next simplest fix is to ignore the flow ID override unless we're >>> in "flows" mode. We can then make valid assumptions about what should >>> go into the host tables. >>> >>> The *right* fix, if we want to maximise functionality, would be to >>> pass the result struct by reference into cake_hash(), where it can >>> override the *host* IDs (not the flow ID). Users can then choose >>> between using the override as a flow ID (by setting "hosts" mode >>> instead of "flows"), or retaining the default host-isolation semantics >>> with a revised definition of "host". >> >> Ah, making it possible to override both host and flow mode is a great >> idea! I guess we could use the major/minor distinction in the class to >> steer this. I'll see if I can't integrate this. > > So, I implemented this; in the latest commit on github it is again > possible to override the flow hashing by setting the class ID with a TC > filter; and the host hash can be overridden by setting the major number > of the class ID. In my testing the hangs from before are gone, but if > anyone else wants to test, please do! > > I'll write up a description of the filter overrides in the man page, and > submit the change upstream as well...
Well that’s good timing for me as I’m wrapping up a small utility/eBPF to classify an arbitrary username to either MAC or IP. Here’s the work in progress, which is not done yet as flow fairness is still under construction, and I haven’t gotten my IPv6 support to pass the rather stubborn eBPF verifier: https://github.com/heistp/tc-users <https://github.com/heistp/tc-users> With your new code Toke: - I so far haven’t seen my VM either crash or suddenly fill its disk with logs, which is a bonus. :) - With the new major/minor ID distinction, I’d probably use major for the user and minor for the flow hash? Another thing I haven’t looked into yet is that when fq_codel is the qdisc, the eBPF action is only called "once in a while” (start of a new flow?) With cake it’s called for every single packet, which is what I expected to happen, but very different behavior. Lastly, if anyone has time to review even just a little code for what is or is not good or idiomatic C, post an issue and I’d appreciate it. Yes, I yield to the ‘goto’ proponents when it comes to error handling and resource de-allocation. :) Pete
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
