From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com,
Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@corigine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net/sched: act_police: add support for packet-per-second policing
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:33:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210201123352.GB25935@netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c47b7d7-dc2b-3422-62ff-92fea8300036@mojatatu.com>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:30:00AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 2021-01-29 5:28 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
> > From: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@corigine.com>
> >
> > Allow a policer action to enforce a rate-limit based on packets-per-second,
> > configurable using a packet-per-second rate and burst parameters. This may
> > be used in conjunction with existing byte-per-second rate limiting in the
> > same policer action.
> >
> > e.g.
> > tc filter add dev tap1 parent ffff: u32 match \
> > u32 0 0 police pkts_rate 3000 pkts_burst 1000
> >
> > Testing was unable to uncover a performance impact of this change on
> > existing features.
> >
>
> Ido's comment is important: Why not make packet rate vs byte rate
> mutually exclusive? If someone uses packet rate then you make sure
> they dont interleave with attributes for byte rate and vice-versa.
>
> I dont see featurewise impact - but certainly the extra check
> in the fastpath will likely have a small performance impact
> at high rates. Probably not a big deal (if Eric D. is not looking).
> Side note: this policer (with your addition) is now supporting 3 policer
> algorithms - i wonder if it makes sense to start spliting the different
> policers (which will solve the performance impact).
Sorry, I somehow missed Ido's email until you and he pointed it out
in this thread.
Regarding splitting up the policer action. I think there is some value to
the current setup in terms of code re-use and allowing combinations of
features. But I do agree it would be a conversation worth having at some
point.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-01 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210129102856.6225-1-simon.horman@netronome.com>
2021-01-29 23:04 ` [PATCH net-next v2] net/sched: act_police: add support for packet-per-second policing Cong Wang
2021-01-30 14:57 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-02-01 13:07 ` Simon Horman
2021-02-01 13:02 ` Simon Horman
2021-02-02 5:26 ` Cong Wang
[not found] ` <0c47b7d7-dc2b-3422-62ff-92fea8300036@mojatatu.com>
2021-02-01 12:33 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2021-02-02 13:59 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210201123352.GB25935@netronome.com \
--to=simon.horman@netronome.com \
--cc=baowen.zheng@corigine.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@mellanox.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).