From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass header.d=toke.dk; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=pass (Used From Domain Record) header.from=toke.dk policy.dmarc=reject From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1763040919; bh=NSDVt8ey4YOlXB+TltCdAR2Hn3qO32j7/zgQJOzbgh8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ZokX+vlma2ls8Mn7QPgSEj1egnAkEzfPP0Pc57uOu+PP0Ol4zTMLUSQSqZNeJVegl inIvOcCkNnd7Lhht5VM9d2b3ujKb1oVHUPRYRipj4TfYpG7g4Xbu71u/TfP9PBZ1gW YoNVSrigH4ljX3VB5vAWCdaLl0Jl44tNwmynyJghiu8f1ZUvO/K2mvRj/ma0WWAxAe jMr6L5X7MGGxDhxd8ofgNflugeODYK8MlPtvthV0M12i1lVPkcZMVIIonblpQNFSCH YBr8xM/ULAZtW0Tg9byAXa+zY7hi9xXheA9Eq01tB4AEvmNqFAoUuemQHMzMfB9uUv ZHpkG/FXOgwng== To: Xiang Mei , security@kernel.org Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, bestswngs@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <20251113035303.51165-1-xmei5@asu.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 14:35:18 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87346ijbs9.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID-Hash: WF62R6WZV6TRU7HXBRDE2FW2XNZDGWQN X-Message-ID-Hash: WF62R6WZV6TRU7HXBRDE2FW2XNZDGWQN X-MailFrom: toke@toke.dk X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list Subject: [Cake] Re: [PATCH net v3] net/sched: sch_cake: Fix incorrect qlen reduction in cake_drop List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Xiang Mei writes: > There is still one problem I am not very sure since I am not very > experienced with cake and gso. It's about the gso branch [1]. The slen > is the lenth added to the cake sch and that branch uses > `qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog(sch, 1-numsegs, len-slen);` to inform the > parent sched. However, when we drop the packet, it could be probmatic > since we should reduce slen instead of len. Is this a potential > problem? Hmm, no I think it's fine? The qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog(sch, 1-numsegs, len-slen) *increases* the backlog with the difference between the original length and the number of new segments. And then we *decrease* the backlog with the number of bytes we dropped. The compensation we're doing is for the backlog update of the parent, which is still using the original packet length regardless of any splitting, so that doesn't change the compensation value. -Toke