On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 08:39:19AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not quiet sure this is correct. What if the limit keeps changing across > different values? Then we'd be calculating the skipped amount based on the > last configuration only which would be incorrect. When one change of configuration is correct, then all changes must be correct by induction. It's sufficient to take into account only the one old config and the new one. This __tg_update_skipped() calculates bytes_skipped with the limit before the change and bytes_skipped are used (divided by) the new limit in tg_with_in_bps_limit(). The accumulation of bytes_skipped across multiple changes (until slice properly ends) is proportional to how bytes_allowed would grow over time. That's why I find this correct (I admit I had to look back into my notes when this was first discussed). HTH, Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
