From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: Why do we prefer skb->priority to tc filters? Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:08:29 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1426098340.11398.59.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <1426104582.11398.61.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <1426110450.11398.84.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: netdev To: Dmitry Sytchev Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:45796 "EHLO mail-ig0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932409AbbCLRIa (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:08:30 -0400 Received: by igjz20 with SMTP id z20so17963358igj.4 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dmitry Sytchev wrote: > Sorry for slight offtopic, but for some reason, recent netfilter SET > changes, which allow setting queue number and priority via ipset > skbinfo extension, don't work with multiple HTB on top of multiq or > mq. Can you show us your setup? `iptables -L` and `tc qd show dev ...`, `tc class show dev ...` etc. > At the same time, tc filters set on outbound iface with skbedit works > fine both for prio and queue number. > How can I find the difference in their behaviour to trace where queue > number set by ipset match gets lost? There are fewer places to set skb->queue_mapping than skb->priority. Since you are using mq, you can watch the `tc -s -d class show dev ...` output to see if your packets go to the desired queue.