On 16 Nov (09:06:03), Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Goulet <dgoulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev -- G5KCdRxFvQYxoWyaIKqONQDGxWeZWspNjvaPIbpYFtQ=
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev