> devik wrote:
> >>>If you read comment above htb_dequeue_tree, it should be called
> >>>only when it is sure that there are packets inside of the level/prio.
> >>>It is known by other HTB mechanism (per-level activity lists).
> >>>
> >>>Thus the bugtrap is to catch case where class was inserted
> >>>into activity list because it had packets in its sub-qdisc
> >>>but when we actually decide to dequeue - it has no packet.
> >>>It is weird - can qdisc lose packets even when dequeue was
> >>>not called ??
> >>
> >>If you change the depth of the leave queue then it is possible to drop
> >>packets or if you completely exchange the queue. Which would also
> >>explain why the assertion only occurs when the configuration is altered.
Now I verified that the problem is indeed the 0 queue length and not a NULL
class pointer.
> >
> >
> > Well, I agree that there is something wrong. Now it is neccessary to
> > find scenario where it does happen so that it is fixed in right way.
> > I have not much time these days to test these cases but your
> informations
> > would lead to following hypothesis:
> >
> > Classe's child qdisc is replaced while old one still has nonzero queue.
> > New empty qdisc is grafted under class instead. What about attached
> > patch (it is against my latest version so you can see offset warnings) ?
>
> This would not work if there are several intermediates HTB queues from
> the device to the leave queue. In this case every queue from the queue
> that was changed to the root has to be notified about the change. (The
> setup we want to use involves such a configuration.) Maybe it is better
> to just deactivate a class when a dequeue from its leave failes due to a
> zero queue length. If you are concerned about performance then an audit
> process could be implemented. For example to check one leave queue every
> 64 packets +/- initial random offset to create some entropy similar to
> the maximum mount count in the ext2 filesystem. Maybe there are better
> ways to do this. I am not so familiar with the code.
>
> I will make some tests with the patch tomorrow. If my theory is true
> then it should still help a lot.
With the patch applied it is much harder to find the right ceil settings to
trigger the assertion, however it does not fix the problem. I also got the
following log entry:
HTB: dequeue bug (8,270045,270045), report it please !
Maybe this massages is just a side effect of the bug.
Greetings,
Wilfried
>
> bye,
> wilfried
>
> >
> > devik
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --- sch_htb.c 2003/07/05 10:37:11 1.21
> > +++ sch_htb.c 2003/07/20 07:24:59
> > @@ -1286,6 +1286,10 @@ static int htb_graft(struct Qdisc *sch,
> > return -ENOBUFS;
> > sch_tree_lock(sch);
> > if ((*old = xchg(&cl->un.leaf.q, new)) != NULL) {
> > + /* TODO: test it */
> > + if (cl->prio_activity)
> > + htb_deactivate ((struct htb_sched*)sch->data,cl);
> > +
> > /* TODO: is it correct ? Why CBQ doesn't do it ? */
> > sch->q.qlen -= (*old)->q.qlen;
> > qdisc_reset(*old);
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Jetzt ein- oder umsteigen und USB-Speicheruhr als Prämie sichern!
