On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 15:46 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: > 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: > >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so > >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't > >> really have multiple interfaces... > >> > >> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to > >> different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth limit if I > >> understand correctly, which seems to be less convenient compared with > >> a solution purely within HTB. > >> > >> I assume that with this solution I can still share qdisc among > >> multiple transmit queues - please let me know if this is not the case. > > > > Note that this MQ + HTB thing works well, unless you use a bonding > > device. (Or you need the MQ+HTB on the slaves, with no way of sharing > > tokens between the slaves) > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bb1d912323d5dd50e1079e389f4e964be14f0ae3 > > > > bonding can not really be used as a true MQ device yet. > > > > I might send a patch to disable this 'bonding feature' if no slave sets > > a queue_id. > > > > > So there is no way of using this MQ solution when bonding interface is > used, right? Then modifying HTB might be the only solution?
I probably can submit a bonding patch very soon if there is interest. Modifying HTB is way more complicated :(
