Re: [tor-bugs] #8810 [Tor]: We need a demonstration of alternate scheduling policy capability

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#8810: We need a demonstration of alternate scheduling policy capability
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  andrea       |          Owner:  andrea            
     Type:  enhancement  |         Status:  needs_review      
 Priority:  normal       |      Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.5.x-final
Component:  Tor          |        Version:  Tor: unspecified  
 Keywords:               |         Parent:                    
   Points:               |   Actualpoints:                    
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Changes (by andrea):

  * status:  new => needs_review


Comment:

 Initial implementation is in my alt_cmux_policy branch.  This seems to
 work okay in initial testing.  The memmove() bugs me a bit, but this is
 just for demonstration purposes and I don't expect the queue to ever get
 very large.

 On reflection, this policy only depends on the order of the timestamps,
 not their values, so if we used abstract sequence numbers (globally or per
 cmux, but shared between circuits on a cmux) instead, incrementing
 whenever growing the buffer, we could get the same effect without the
 potential clock monotonicity or the gettimeofday() syscall.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8810#comment:1>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs