From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] fq_codel: add memory limitation per queue
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:34:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpURNs3vVVN1cceRLh2ptvsMno3bPubc9wwfQvcWe8je8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw6QLyx9EaS+ntB0D3duoysu_Z-UYyQfHnRa=pfqPDfWOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <865DA393-262D-40B6-A9D3-1B978CD5F6C6@gmail.com> <1462128385.5535.200.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <C5D365DA-18EE-446E-9D25-41F48B1C583E@gmail.com> <1462136140.5535.219.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CACiydbKUu11=zWitkDha0ddgk1-G_Z4-e1+=9ky776VktF5HHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1462201620.5535.250.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CACiydbKeKUENncrc-NmYRcku-DGVeGqqzYMqsCqKdxPsR7yUOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1462205669.5535.254.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CACiydbL26Jj3EcEL4EmqaH=1Dm-Q0dpVwoWxqUSZ7ry10bRgeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1462464776.13075.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CACiydbJYrFRMJvSHM6tJYWR8vmgV3xxnSUQsb-h5WcnLW=KXoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1462476207.13075.20.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CAA93jw4XZ1+LLX1z6wQ6DHsp4vFCS5zmMz-uku_8SBNG_KuUxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <542135C7-D7CC-4E33-B35B-C2AD259FA5AB@gmx.de> <20160506133323.0b190f47@redhat.com>
 <D29AB9B2-D514-4D14-9A16-CFB9ECD05B17@gmx.de> <1462541156.13075.34.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <1462550112.13075.47.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CAM_iQpUfJxMxQXia8JOH5xouSFMThrdZWZMUuQ0q=bSmp8oEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1462768295.23934.28.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CAM_iQpXOTjdY4AsQVV6qz_U7be6m6OnYO0ZNSanxo6pXqdOu+Q@mail.gmail.com> <1462804008.23934.30.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	=?UTF-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= <dave.taht@gmail.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.161.181]:35764 "EHLO
	mail-yw0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750858AbcEJEfL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 10 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400
Received: by mail-yw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g133so1249764ywb.2
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 09 May 2016 21:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1462804008.23934.30.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 22:07 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 21:14 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> >
>> >> So when the packet is dropped due to memory over limit, should
>> >> we return failure for this case? Or I miss anything?
>> >
>> > Same behavior than before.
>> >
>> > If we dropped some packets of this flow, we return NET_XMIT_CN
>>
>> I think for the limited memory case, the upper layer is supposed
>> to stop sending more packets when hitting the limit.
>
> They doe. NET_XMIT_CN for example aborts IP fragmentation.
>
> TCP flows will also instantly react.

But not for the NET_XMIT_SUCCESS case:

        return ret == idx ? NET_XMIT_CN : NET_XMIT_SUCCESS;