[tor-dev] Connection, Channel and Scheduler - An Intense Trek

[David Goulet]

On 16 Nov (09:06:03), Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Goulet <dgoulet at torproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 15 Nov (13:49:54), Nick Mathewson wrote:
> 
>  [...]
> >
> > > On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the FIFO structure we have today
> > > is a good idea at all.  It probably makes sense to use the same priority
> > > queue-based scheduler thing that we use everywhere else, but possibly with
> > > a different (inverted??) priority parameter for destroyed circuits.
> >
> > (We kind of need the FIFO concept for cells afaict because of the parent
> > relationship between cells with their digest (à la git). And that is of course
> > per circuit.)
> >
> 
> Are you sure?  DESTROY cells aren't relay cells; they don't have relay
> crypto done to them, and I think it's okay to re-order them with
> respect to other cells.  I don't think they have a digest on them, do
> they?

OH sorry I thought you were talking about normal circuit queue here... I
mis-read.

But yes, as I mentionned in this email after, moving to a prio queue for
instance has starvation implication.

Sorry!
David

> 
> peace,
> -- 
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

-- 
G5KCdRxFvQYxoWyaIKqONQDGxWeZWspNjvaPIbpYFtQ=
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20171116/4bdbe6f0/attachment.sig>