From: Paolo Valente
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:03:19 +0100
> This patch turns QFQ into QFQ+, a variant of QFQ that provides the
> following two benefits: 1) QFQ+ is faster than QFQ, 2) differently
> from QFQ, QFQ+ correctly schedules also non-leaves classes in a
> hierarchical setting. A detailed
This patch turns QFQ into QFQ+, a variant of QFQ that provides the
following two benefits: 1) QFQ+ is faster than QFQ, 2) differently
from QFQ, QFQ+ correctly schedules also non-leaves classes in a
hierarchical setting. A detailed description of QFQ+, plus a
performance comparison with DRR and QFQ,
Il 23/11/2012 20:28, David Miller ha scritto:
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:56:20 +0100
+/*
+
+ */
Please don't add useless things like this in your patch.
Sorry, I forgot to remove it after I moved the body of the comment to a
better place. I have fixed and checked again t
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:56:20 +0100
> +/*
> +
> + */
Please don't add useless things like this in your patch.
Thank you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
This patch turns QFQ into QFQ+, a variant of QFQ that provides the
following two benefits: 1) QFQ+ is faster than QFQ, 2) differently
from QFQ, QFQ+ correctly schedules also non-leaves classes in a
hierarchical setting. A detailed description of QFQ+, plus a
performance comparison with DRR and QFQ,
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:45:14 +0100
> Got it. Actually, if the first qfq_peek_skb returns NULL, then the
> example version that you are proposing apparently may behave in a
> different way than the original one: in your proposal the scheduler
> tries to switch to a new aggre
Il 20/11/2012 19:54, David Miller ha scritto:
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:45:13 +0100
- struct sk_buff *skb;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
This is not really an improvement,
Sorry for trying this silly short cut
now the compiler can think
that NULL is passed
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:45:13 +0100
> - struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
This is not really an improvement, now the compiler can think
that NULL is passed eventually into qdisc_bstats_update().
Please make the logic easier for the compiler to di
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:15:16 -0500 (EST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:09:58 -0800
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:02:02 -0500 (EST)
> > David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> From: Stephen Hemminger
> >> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800
> >>
> >> > There
From: Stephen Hemminger
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:09:58 -0800
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:02:02 -0500 (EST)
> David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Stephen Hemminger
>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800
>>
>> > There are actually lots of bogus warnings than seem to only occur
>> > because gcc 4.4 d
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:02:02 -0500 (EST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800
>
> > There are actually lots of bogus warnings than seem to only occur
> > because gcc 4.4 does a bad job of checking. Later versions are fixed
> > and don't generate
From: Stephen Hemminger
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800
> There are actually lots of bogus warnings than seem to only occur
> because gcc 4.4 does a bad job of checking. Later versions are fixed
> and don't generate warnings.
>
> My preference is to not add the unnecessary initialization b
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:45:02 +0100
> Unfortunately I could not reproduce the warning (with
> gcc-4.7 -Wmaybe-uninitialized). I am however about to send a new
> version with skb initialized to NULL. I hope that this fix properly
> addresses this issue.
It triggers readily w
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:45:02 +0100
Paolo Valente wrote:
> Il 20/11/2012 00:48, David Miller ha scritto:
> > From: Paolo Valente
> > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:48:33 +0100
> >
> >> [This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
> >> net-next"), but no further feedback or de
This patch turns QFQ into QFQ+, a variant of QFQ that provides the
following two benefits: 1) QFQ+ is faster than QFQ, 2) differently
from QFQ, QFQ+ correctly schedules also non-leaves classes in a
hierarchical setting. The way how QFQ+ achieves these goals is
discussed briefly below. I also repor
Il 20/11/2012 00:48, David Miller ha scritto:
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:48:33 +0100
[This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
net-next"), but no further feedback or decision. So I am (re)sending
an updated version of it. The only differences wit
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:48:33 +0100
> [This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
> net-next"), but no further feedback or decision. So I am (re)sending
> an updated version of it. The only differences with respect to the
> previous version are the
[This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
net-next"), but no further feedback or decision. So I am (re)sending
an updated version of it. The only differences with respect to the
previous version are the support for TSO/GSO (taken from QFQ), and a
hopefully improved desc
18 matches
Mail list logo
