On 2/22/19 8:50 AM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> I think the misunderstanding here is that I think he's not getting the
> ifp from the route.
>
> My recollection is that he is holding the ifps when he enables HW pacing
> in BBR. Due to limitations in different NIC hardware, you can only have
> N
I think the misunderstanding here is that I think he's not getting the
ifp from the route.
My recollection is that he is holding the ifps when he enables HW pacing
in BBR. Due to limitations in different NIC hardware, you can only have
N different rates, etc. So he goes ahead and allocates
Hi,
On 2/21/19 7:28 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On 2/21/19 7:29 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:10 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On 2/13/19 10:03 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
oh and one other thing..
It was*not* a random IFP.. it was the IFP to the lagg.
I.e. an alloc() was done
On 2/21/19 7:29 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:10 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/19 10:03 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>>> oh and one other thing..
>>>
>>> It was *not* a random IFP.. it was the IFP to the lagg.
>>>
>>> I.e. an alloc() was done to the lagg.. and
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:10 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 2/13/19 10:03 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>> oh and one other thing..
>>
>> It was *not* a random IFP.. it was the IFP to the lagg.
>>
>> I.e. an alloc() was done to the lagg.. and the free was
>> done back to the same IFP (that
On 2/13/19 10:03 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
> oh and one other thing..
>
> It was *not* a random IFP.. it was the IFP to the lagg.
>
> I.e. an alloc() was done to the lagg.. and the free was
> done back to the same IFP (that provided the allocate).
Yes, that's wrong. Suppose the route changes
oh and one other thing..
It was *not* a random IFP.. it was the IFP to the lagg.
I.e. an alloc() was done to the lagg.. and the free was
done back to the same IFP (that provided the allocate).
R
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>
> I disagree. If you define an alloc it
I disagree. If you define an alloc it is only
reciprocal that you should define a free.
The code in question that hit this was changed (its in a version
of rack that has the rate-limit and TLS code).. but I think these
things *should* be balanced.. if you provide an Allocate, you
should also
On 2/13/19 6:57 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Author: rrs
> Date: Wed Feb 13 14:57:59 2019
> New Revision: 344099
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/344099
>
> Log:
> This commit adds the missing release mechanism for the
> ratelimiting code. The two modules (lagg and vlan) did
Author: rrs
Date: Wed Feb 13 14:57:59 2019
New Revision: 344099
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/344099
Log:
This commit adds the missing release mechanism for the
ratelimiting code. The two modules (lagg and vlan) did have
allocation routines, and even though they are
10 matches
Mail list logo
