Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:40:30PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-08-07 07:21 PM, Cong Wang wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:54 PM, John Fastabend >> <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 08/07/2017 12:06 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:47:14PM CEST, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > On 08/07/2017 09:41 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > > > Hi Jamal/Cong/David/all. >> > > > > >= >> > > >> > > Not correct. prio/pref is one level up priority, independent on specific >> > > cls implementation. You can have cls_u32 instance on prio 10 and >> > > cls_flower instance on prio 20. Both work. >> > >> > ah right, lets make sure I got this right then (its been awhile since I've >> > read this code). So the tcf_ctl_tfilter hook walks classifiers, inserting >> > the >> > classifier by prio. Then tcf_classify walks the list of classifiers looking >> > for any matches, specifically any return codes it recognizes or a return >> > code >> > greater than zero. u32 though has this link notion that allows users to >> > jump >> > to other u32 classifiers that are in this list, because it has a global >> > hash >> > table list. So the per prio classifier isolation is not true in u32 case. >> >> u32 filter supports multiple hash tables within a qdisc, struct >> tc_u_common is supposed to link them together. This has to be >> per qdisc because all of these hash tables belong to one qdisc >> and their ID's are unique within the qdisc. >> > >I think historically this used to sit within the u32 code as a >static linked list; i cant recall why it got attached to the >qdisc. >Indeed, the idea is that hash tables can be added independently >without linking and then linked afterwards. They have to be held >somewhere in transient. And they have priorities (at least the >prios are used in the dump) > >> I dislike it too, and I actually tried to improve it in the past, >> unfortunately didn't make any real progress. I think we can >> definitely make it less ugly, but I don't think we can totally >> get rid of it because of the design of u32. >> >> Similar for tp->data. >> > >tp->q maybe harder to deal with. I agree with getting rid of >this dependency. Could this info be stored in the block instead?
Yeah, I will have to do that. I just wanted to get rid of it if possible :/ > >cheers, >jamal
