Adding upstream version 6.1.0.upstream/6.1.0upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

2 files changed, 581 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/man/man7/Makefile b/man/man7/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0e545a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/man/man7/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+MAN7PAGES = $(wildcard *.7)
+
+all:
+
+distclean: clean
+
+clean:
+
+install:
+	$(INSTALLDIR) $(DESTDIR)$(MANDIR)/man7
+	$(INSTALLMAN) $(MAN7PAGES) $(DESTDIR)$(MANDIR)/man7
+
+check:
+	@for page in $(MAN7PAGES); do test 0 -eq $$($(MAN_CHECK) $$page \
+		$(MAN_REDIRECT)) || { echo "Error in $$page"; exit 1; }; done
+
+.PHONY: install clean distclean check
diff --git a/man/man7/tc-hfsc.7 b/man/man7/tc-hfsc.7
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..412b4c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/man/man7/tc-hfsc.7
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+.TH "TC\-HFSC" 7 "31 October 2011" iproute2 Linux
+.SH "NAME"
+tc-hfcs \- Hierarchical Fair Service Curve
+.
+.SH "HISTORY & INTRODUCTION"
+.
+HFSC (Hierarchical Fair Service Curve) is a network packet scheduling algorithm that was first presented at
+SIGCOMM'97. Developed as a part of ALTQ (ALTernative Queuing) on NetBSD, found
+its way quickly to other BSD systems, and then a few years ago became part of
+the linux kernel. Still, it's not the most popular scheduling algorithm \-
+especially if compared to HTB \- and it's not well documented for the enduser. This introduction aims to explain how HFSC works without using
+too much math (although some math it will be
+inevitable).
+
+In short HFSC aims to:
+.
+.RS 4
+.IP \fB1)\fR 4
+guarantee precise bandwidth and delay allocation for all leaf classes (realtime
+criterion)
+.IP \fB2)\fR
+allocate excess bandwidth fairly as specified by class hierarchy (linkshare &
+upperlimit criterion)
+.IP \fB3)\fR
+minimize any discrepancy between the service curve and the actual amount of
+service provided during linksharing
+.RE
+.PP
+.
+The main "selling" point of HFSC is feature \fB(1)\fR, which is achieved by
+using nonlinear service curves (more about what it actually is later). This is
+particularly useful in VoIP or games, where not only a guarantee of consistent
+bandwidth is important, but also limiting the initial delay of a data stream. Note that
+it matters only for leaf classes (where the actual queues are) \- thus class
+hierarchy is ignored in the realtime case.
+
+Feature \fB(2)\fR is well, obvious \- any algorithm featuring class hierarchy
+(such as HTB or CBQ) strives to achieve that. HFSC does that well, although
+you might end with unusual situations, if you define service curves carelessly
+\- see section CORNER CASES for examples.
+
+Feature \fB(3)\fR is mentioned due to the nature of the problem. There may be
+situations where it's either not possible to guarantee service of all curves at
+the same time, and/or it's impossible to do so fairly. Both will be explained
+later. Note that this is mainly related to interior (aka aggregate) classes, as
+the leafs are already handled by \fB(1)\fR. Still, it's perfectly possible to
+create a leaf class without realtime service, and in such a case the caveats will
+naturally extend to leaf classes as well.
+
+.SH ABBREVIATIONS
+For the remaining part of the document, we'll use following shortcuts:
+.nf
+.RS 4
+
+RT \- realtime
+LS \- linkshare
+UL \- upperlimit
+SC \- service curve
+.RE
+.fi
+.
+.SH "BASICS OF HFSC"
+.
+To understand how HFSC works, we must first introduce a service curve.
+Overall, it's a nondecreasing function of some time unit, returning the amount
+of
+service (an allowed or allocated amount of bandwidth) at some specific point in
+time. The purpose of it should be subconsciously obvious: if a class was
+allowed to transfer not less than the amount specified by its service curve,
+then the service curve is not violated.
+
+Still, we need more elaborate criterion than just the above (although in
+the most generic case it can be reduced to it). The criterion has to take two
+things into account:
+.
+.RS 4
+.IP \(bu 4
+idling periods
+.IP \(bu
+the ability to "look back", so if during current active period the service curve is violated, maybe it
+isn't if we count excess bandwidth received during earlier active period(s)
+.RE
+.PP
+Let's define the criterion as follows:
+.RS 4
+.nf
+.IP "\fB(1)\fR" 4
+For each t1, there must exist t0 in set B, so S(t1\-t0)\~<=\~w(t0,t1)
+.fi
+.RE
+.
+.PP
+Here 'w' denotes the amount of service received during some time period between t0
+and t1. B is a set of all times, where a session becomes active after idling
+period (further denoted as 'becoming backlogged'). For a clearer picture,
+imagine two situations:
+.
+.RS 4
+.IP \fBa)\fR 4
+our session was active during two periods, with a small time gap between them
+.IP \fBb)\fR
+as in (a), but with a larger gap
+.RE
+.
+.PP
+Consider \fB(a)\fR: if the service received during both periods meets
+\fB(1)\fR, then all is well. But what if it doesn't do so during the 2nd
+period? If the amount of service received during the 1st period is larger
+than the service curve, then it might compensate for smaller service during
+the 2nd period \fIand\fR the gap \- if the gap is small enough.
+
+If the gap is larger \fB(b)\fR \- then it's less likely to happen (unless the
+excess bandwidth allocated during the 1st part was really large). Still, the
+larger the gap \- the less interesting is what happened in the past (e.g. 10
+minutes ago) \- what matters is the current traffic that just started.
+
+From HFSC's perspective, more interesting is answering the following question:
+when should we start transferring packets, so a service curve of a class is not
+violated. Or rephrasing it: How much X() amount of service should a session
+receive by time t, so the service curve is not violated. Function X() defined
+as below is the basic building block of HFSC, used in: eligible, deadline,
+virtual\-time and fit\-time curves. Of course, X() is based on equation
+\fB(1)\fR and is defined recursively:
+
+.RS 4
+.IP \(bu 4
+At the 1st backlogged period beginning function X is initialized to generic
+service curve assigned to a class
+.IP \(bu
+At any subsequent backlogged period, X() is:
+.nf
+\fBmin(X() from previous period ; w(t0)+S(t\-t0) for t>=t0),\fR
+.fi
+\&... where t0 denotes the beginning of the current backlogged period.
+.RE
+.
+.PP
+HFSC uses either linear, or two\-piece linear service curves. In case of
+linear or two\-piece linear convex functions (first slope < second slope),
+min() in X's definition reduces to the 2nd argument. But in case of two\-piece
+concave functions, the 1st argument might quickly become lesser for some
+t>=t0. Note, that for some backlogged period, X() is defined only from that
+period's beginning. We also define X^(\-1)(w) as smallest t>=t0, for which
+X(t)\~=\~w. We have to define it this way, as X() is usually not an injection.
+
+The above generic X() can be one of the following:
+.
+.RS 4
+.IP "E()" 4
+In realtime criterion, selects packets eligible for sending. If none are
+eligible, HFSC will use linkshare criterion. Eligible time \&'et' is calculated
+with reference to packets' heads ( et\~=\~E^(\-1)(w) ). It's based on RT
+service curve, \fIbut in case of a convex curve, uses its 2nd slope only.\fR
+.IP "D()"
+In realtime criterion, selects the most suitable packet from the ones chosen
+by E(). Deadline time \&'dt' corresponds to packets' tails
+(dt\~=\~D^(\-1)(w+l), where \&'l' is packet's length). Based on RT service
+curve.
+.IP "V()"
+In linkshare criterion, arbitrates which packet to send next. Note that V() is
+function of a virtual time \- see \fBLINKSHARE CRITERION\fR section for
+details. Virtual time \&'vt' corresponds to packets' heads
+(vt\~=\~V^(\-1)(w)). Based on LS service curve.
+.IP "F()"
+An extension to linkshare criterion, used to limit at which speed linkshare
+criterion is allowed to dequeue. Fit\-time 'ft' corresponds to packets' heads
+as well (ft\~=\~F^(\-1)(w)). Based on UL service curve.
+.RE
+
+Be sure to make clean distinction between session's RT, LS and UL service
+curves and the above "utility" functions.
+.
+.SH "REALTIME CRITERION"
+.
+RT criterion \fIignores class hierarchy\fR and guarantees precise bandwidth and
+delay allocation. We say that a packet is eligible for sending, when the
+current real
+time is later than the eligible time of the packet. From all eligible packets, the one most
+suited for sending is the one with the shortest deadline time. This sounds
+simple, but consider the following example:
+
+Interface 10Mbit, two classes, both with two\-piece linear service curves:
+.RS 4
+.IP \(bu 4
+1st class \- 2Mbit for 100ms, then 7Mbit (convex \- 1st slope < 2nd slope)
+.IP \(bu
+2nd class \- 7Mbit for 100ms, then 2Mbit (concave \- 1st slope > 2nd slope)
+.RE
+.PP
+Assume for a moment, that we only use D() for both finding eligible packets,
+and choosing the most fitting one, thus eligible time would be computed as
+D^(\-1)(w) and deadline time would be computed as D^(\-1)(w+l). If the 2nd
+class starts sending packets 1 second after the 1st class, it's of course
+impossible to guarantee 14Mbit, as the interface capability is only 10Mbit.
+The only workaround in this scenario is to allow the 1st class to send the
+packets earlier that would normally be allowed. That's where separate E() comes
+to help. Putting all the math aside (see HFSC paper for details), E() for RT
+concave service curve is just like D(), but for the RT convex service curve \-
+it's constructed using \fIonly\fR RT service curve's 2nd slope (in our example
+ 7Mbit).
+
+The effect of such E() \- packets will be sent earlier, and at the same time
+D() \fIwill\fR be updated \- so the current deadline time calculated from it
+will be later. Thus, when the 2nd class starts sending packets later, both
+the 1st and the 2nd class will be eligible, but the 2nd session's deadline
+time will be smaller and its packets will be sent first. When the 1st class
+becomes idle at some later point, the 2nd class will be able to "buffer" up
+again for later active period of the 1st class.
+
+A short remark \- in a situation, where the total amount of bandwidth
+available on the interface is larger than the allocated total realtime parts
+(imagine a 10 Mbit interface, but 1Mbit/2Mbit and 2Mbit/1Mbit classes), the sole
+speed of the interface could suffice to guarantee the times.
+
+Important part of RT criterion is that apart from updating its D() and E(),
+also V() used by LS criterion is updated. Generally the RT criterion is
+secondary to LS one, and used \fIonly\fR if there's a risk of violating precise
+realtime requirements. Still, the "participation" in bandwidth distributed by
+LS criterion is there, so V() has to be updated along the way. LS criterion can
+than properly compensate for non\-ideal fair sharing situation, caused by RT
+scheduling. If you use UL service curve its F() will be updated as well (UL
+service curve is an extension to LS one \- see \fBUPPERLIMIT CRITERION\fR
+section).
+
+Anyway \- careless specification of LS and RT service curves can lead to
+potentially undesired situations (see CORNER CASES for examples). This wasn't
+the case in HFSC paper where LS and RT service curves couldn't be specified
+separately.
+
+.SH "LINKSHARING CRITERION"
+.
+LS criterion's task is to distribute bandwidth according to specified class
+hierarchy. Contrary to RT criterion, there're no comparisons between current
+real time and virtual time \- the decision is based solely on direct comparison
+of virtual times of all active subclasses \- the one with the smallest vt wins
+and gets scheduled. One immediate conclusion from this fact is that absolute
+values don't matter \- only ratios between them (so for example, two children
+classes with simple linear 1Mbit service curves will get the same treatment
+from LS criterion's perspective, as if they were 5Mbit). The other conclusion
+is, that in perfectly fluid system with linear curves, all virtual times across
+whole class hierarchy would be equal.
+
+Why is VC defined in term of virtual time (and what is it)?
+
+Imagine an example: class A with two children \- A1 and A2, both with let's say
+10Mbit SCs. If A2 is idle, A1 receives all the bandwidth of A (and update its
+V() in the process). When A2 becomes active, A1's virtual time is already
+\fIfar\fR later than A2's one. Considering the type of decision made by LS
+criterion, A1 would become idle for a long time. We can workaround this
+situation by adjusting virtual time of the class becoming active \- we do that
+by getting such time "up to date". HFSC uses a mean of the smallest and the
+biggest virtual time of currently active children fit for sending. As it's not
+real time anymore (excluding trivial case of situation where all classes become
+active at the same time, and never become idle), it's called virtual time.
+
+Such approach has its price though. The problem is analogous to what was
+presented in previous section and is caused by non\-linearity of service
+curves:
+.IP 1) 4
+either it's impossible to guarantee service curves and satisfy fairness
+during certain time periods:
+
+.RS 4
+Recall the example from RT section, slightly modified (with 3Mbit slopes
+instead of 2Mbit ones):
+
+.IP \(bu 4
+1st class \- 3Mbit for 100ms, then 7Mbit (convex \- 1st slope < 2nd slope)
+.IP \(bu
+2nd class \- 7Mbit for 100ms, then 3Mbit (concave \- 1st slope > 2nd slope)
+
+.PP
+They sum up nicely to 10Mbit \- the interface's capacity. But if we wanted to only
+use LS for guarantees and fairness \- it simply won't work. In LS context,
+only V() is used for making decision which class to schedule. If the 2nd class
+becomes active when the 1st one is in its second slope, the fairness will be
+preserved \- ratio will be 1:1 (7Mbit:7Mbit), but LS itself is of course
+unable to guarantee the absolute values themselves \- as it would have to go
+beyond of what the interface is capable of.
+.RE
+
+.IP 2) 4
+and/or it's impossible to guarantee service curves of all classes at the same
+time [fairly or not]:
+
+.RS 4
+
+This is similar to the above case, but a bit more subtle. We will consider two
+subtrees, arbitrated by their common (root here) parent:
+
+.nf
+R (root) -\ 10Mbit
+
+A  \- 7Mbit, then 3Mbit
+A1 \- 5Mbit, then 2Mbit
+A2 \- 2Mbit, then 1Mbit
+
+B  \- 3Mbit, then 7Mbit
+.fi
+
+R arbitrates between left subtree (A) and right (B). Assume that A2 and B are
+constantly backlogged, and at some later point A1 becomes backlogged (when all
+other classes are in their 2nd linear part).
+
+What happens now? B (choice made by R) will \fIalways\fR get 7 Mbit as R is
+only (obviously) concerned with the ratio between its direct children. Thus A
+subtree gets 3Mbit, but its children would want (at the point when A1 became
+backlogged) 5Mbit + 1Mbit. That's of course impossible, as they can only get
+3Mbit due to interface limitation.
+
+In the left subtree \- we have the same situation as previously (fair split
+between A1 and A2, but violated guarantees), but in the whole tree \- there's
+no fairness (B got 7Mbit, but A1 and A2 have to fit together in 3Mbit) and
+there's no guarantees for all classes (only B got what it wanted). Even if we
+violated fairness in the A subtree and set A2's service curve to 0, A1 would
+still not get the required bandwidth.
+.RE
+.
+.SH "UPPERLIMIT CRITERION"
+.
+UL criterion is an extensions to LS one, that permits sending packets only
+if current real time is later than fit\-time ('ft'). So the modified LS
+criterion becomes: choose the smallest virtual time from all active children,
+such that fit\-time < current real time also holds. Fit\-time is calculated
+from F(), which is based on UL service curve. As you can see, its role is
+kinda similar to E() used in RT criterion. Also, for obvious reasons \- you
+can't specify UL service curve without LS one.
+
+The main purpose of the UL service curve is to limit HFSC to bandwidth available on the
+upstream router (think adsl home modem/router, and linux server as
+NAT/firewall/etc. with 100Mbit+ connection to mentioned modem/router).
+Typically, it's used to create a single class directly under root, setting
+a linear UL service curve to available bandwidth \- and then creating your class
+structure from that class downwards. Of course, you're free to add a UL service
+curve (linear or not) to any class with LS criterion.
+
+An important part about the UL service curve is that whenever at some point in time
+a class doesn't qualify for linksharing due to its fit\-time, the next time it
+does qualify it will update its virtual time to the smallest virtual time of
+all active children fit for linksharing. This way, one of the main things the LS
+criterion tries to achieve \- equality of all virtual times across whole
+hierarchy \- is preserved (in perfectly fluid system with only linear curves,
+all virtual times would be equal).
+
+Without that, 'vt' would lag behind other virtual times, and could cause
+problems. Consider an interface with a capacity of 10Mbit, and the following leaf classes
+(just in case you're skipping this text quickly \- this example shows behavior
+that \f(BIdoesn't happen\fR):
+
+.nf
+A \- ls 5.0Mbit
+B \- ls 2.5Mbit
+C \- ls 2.5Mbit, ul 2.5Mbit
+.fi
+
+If B was idle, while A and C were constantly backlogged, A and C would normally
+(as far as LS criterion is concerned) divide bandwidth in 2:1 ratio. But due
+to UL service curve in place, C would get at most 2.5Mbit, and A would get the
+remaining 7.5Mbit. The longer the backlogged period, the more the virtual times of
+A and C would drift apart. If B became backlogged at some later point in time,
+its virtual time would be set to (A's\~vt\~+\~C's\~vt)/2, thus blocking A from
+sending any traffic until B's virtual time catches up with A.
+.
+.SH "SEPARATE LS / RT SCs"
+.
+Another difference from the original HFSC paper is that RT and LS SCs can be
+specified separately. Moreover, leaf classes are allowed to have only either
+RT SC or LS SC. For interior classes, only LS SCs make sense: any RT SC will
+be ignored.
+.
+.SH "CORNER CASES"
+.
+Separate service curves for LS and RT criteria can lead to certain traps
+that come from "fighting" between ideal linksharing and enforced realtime
+guarantees. Those situations didn't exist in original HFSC paper, where
+specifying separate LS / RT service curves was not discussed.
+
+Consider an interface with a 10Mbit capacity, with the following leaf classes:
+
+.nf
+A \- ls 5.0Mbit, rt 8Mbit
+B \- ls 2.5Mbit
+C \- ls 2.5Mbit
+.fi
+
+Imagine A and C are constantly backlogged. As B is idle, A and C would divide
+bandwidth in 2:1 ratio, considering LS service curve (so in theory \- 6.66 and
+3.33). Alas RT criterion takes priority, so A will get 8Mbit and LS will be
+able to compensate class C for only 2 Mbit \- this will cause discrepancy
+between virtual times of A and C.
+
+Assume this situation lasts for a long time with no idle periods, and
+suddenly B becomes active. B's virtual time will be updated to
+(A's\~vt\~+\~C's\~vt)/2, effectively landing in the middle between A's and C's
+virtual time. The effect \- B, having no RT guarantees, will be punished and
+will not be allowed to transfer until C's virtual time catches up.
+
+If the interface had a higher capacity, for example 100Mbit, this example
+would behave perfectly fine though.
+
+Let's look a bit closer at the above example \- it "cleverly" invalidates one
+of the basic things LS criterion tries to achieve \- equality of all virtual
+times across class hierarchy. Leaf classes without RT service curves are
+literally left to their own fate (governed by messed up virtual times).
+
+Also, it doesn't make much sense. Class A will always be guaranteed up to
+8Mbit, and this is more than any absolute bandwidth that could happen from its
+LS criterion (excluding trivial case of only A being active). If the bandwidth
+taken by A is smaller than absolute value from LS criterion, the unused part
+will be automatically assigned to other active classes (as A has idling periods
+in such case). The only "advantage" is, that even in case of low bandwidth on
+average, bursts would be handled at the speed defined by RT criterion. Still,
+if extra speed is needed (e.g. due to latency), non linear service curves
+should be used in such case.
+
+In the other words: the LS criterion is meaningless in the above example.
+
+You can quickly "workaround" it by making sure each leaf class has RT service
+curve assigned (thus guaranteeing all of them will get some bandwidth), but it
+doesn't make it any more valid.
+
+Keep in mind - if you use nonlinear curves and irregularities explained above
+happen \fIonly\fR in the first segment, then there's little wrong with
+"overusing" RT curve a bit:
+
+.nf
+A \- ls 5.0Mbit, rt 9Mbit/30ms, then 1Mbit
+B \- ls 2.5Mbit
+C \- ls 2.5Mbit
+.fi
+
+Here, the vt of A will "spike" in the initial period, but then A will never get more
+than 1Mbit until B & C catch up. Then everything will be back to normal.
+.
+.SH "LINUX AND TIMER RESOLUTION"
+.
+In certain situations, the scheduler can throttle itself and setup so
+called watchdog to wakeup dequeue function at some time later. In case of HFSC
+it happens when for example no packet is eligible for scheduling, and UL
+service curve is used to limit the speed at which LS criterion is allowed to
+dequeue packets. It's called throttling, and accuracy of it is dependent on
+how the kernel is compiled.
+
+There're 3 important options in modern kernels, as far as timers' resolution
+goes: \&'tickless system', \&'high resolution timer support' and \&'timer
+frequency'.
+
+If you have \&'tickless system' enabled, then the timer interrupt will trigger
+as slowly as possible, but each time a scheduler throttles itself (or any
+other part of the kernel needs better accuracy), the rate will be increased as
+needed / possible. The ceiling is either \&'timer frequency' if \&'high
+resolution timer support' is not available or not compiled in, or it's
+hardware dependent and can go \fIfar\fR beyond the highest \&'timer frequency'
+setting available.
+
+If \&'tickless system' is not enabled, the timer will trigger at a fixed rate
+specified by \&'timer frequency' \- regardless if high resolution timers are
+or aren't available.
+
+This is important to keep those settings in mind, as in scenario like: no
+tickless, no HR timers, frequency set to 100hz \- throttling accuracy would be
+at 10ms. It doesn't automatically mean you would be limited to ~0.8Mbit/s
+(assuming packets at ~1KB) \- as long as your queues are prepared to cover for
+timer inaccuracy. Of course, in case of e.g. locally generated UDP traffic \-
+appropriate socket size is needed as well. Short example to make it more
+understandable (assume hardcore anti\-schedule settings \- HZ=100, no HR
+timers, no tickless):
+
+.nf
+tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 hfsc default 1
+tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 hfsc rt m2 10Mbit
+.fi
+
+Assuming packet of ~1KB size and HZ=100, that averages to ~0.8Mbit \- anything
+beyond it (e.g. the above example with specified rate over 10x larger) will
+require appropriate queuing and cause bursts every ~10 ms. As you can
+imagine, any HFSC's RT guarantees will be seriously invalidated by that.
+Aforementioned example is mainly important if you deal with old hardware \- as
+is particularly popular for home server chores. Even then, you can easily
+set HZ=1000 and have very accurate scheduling for typical adsl speeds.
+
+Anything modern (apic or even hpet msi based timers + \&'tickless system')
+will provide enough accuracy for superb 1Gbit scheduling. For example, on one
+of my cheap dual-core AMD boards I have the following settings:
+
+.nf
+tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent root handle 1:0 hfsc default 1
+tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 hfsc rt m2 300mbit
+.fi
+
+And a simple:
+
+.nf
+nc \-u dst.host.com 54321 </dev/zero
+nc \-l \-p 54321 >/dev/null
+.fi
+
+\&...will yield the following effects over a period of ~10 seconds (taken from
+/proc/interrupts):
+
+.nf
+319: 42124229   0  HPET_MSI\-edge  hpet2 (before)
+319: 42436214   0  HPET_MSI\-edge  hpet2 (after 10s.)
+.fi
+
+That's roughly 31000/s. Now compare it with HZ=1000 setting. The obvious
+drawback of it is that cpu load can be rather high with servicing that
+many timer interrupts. The example with 300Mbit RT service curve on 1Gbit link is
+particularly ugly, as it requires a lot of throttling with minuscule delays.
+
+Also note that it's just an example showing the capabilities of current hardware.
+The above example (essentially a 300Mbit TBF emulator) is pointless on an internal
+interface to begin with: you will pretty much always want a regular LS service
+curve there, and in such a scenario HFSC simply doesn't throttle at all.
+
+300Mbit RT service curve (selected columns from mpstat \-P ALL 1):
+
+.nf
+10:56:43 PM  CPU  %sys     %irq   %soft   %idle
+10:56:44 PM  all  20.10    6.53   34.67   37.19
+10:56:44 PM    0  35.00    0.00   63.00    0.00
+10:56:44 PM    1   4.95   12.87    6.93   73.27
+.fi
+
+So, in the rare case you need those speeds with only a RT service curve, or with a UL
+service curve: remember the drawbacks.
+.
+.SH "CAVEAT: RANDOM ONLINE EXAMPLES"
+.
+For reasons unknown (though well guessed), many examples you can google love to
+overuse UL criterion and stuff it in every node possible. This makes no sense
+and works against what HFSC tries to do (and does pretty damn well). Use UL
+where it makes sense: on the uppermost node to match upstream router's uplink
+capacity. Or in special cases, such as testing (limit certain subtree to some
+speed), or customers that must never get more than certain speed. In the last
+case you can usually achieve the same by just using a RT criterion without LS+UL
+on leaf nodes.
+
+As for the router case - remember it's good to differentiate between "traffic to
+router" (remote console, web config, etc.) and "outgoing traffic", so for
+example:
+
+.nf
+tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 hfsc default 0x8002
+tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:999 hfsc rt m2 50Mbit
+tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 hfsc ls m2 2Mbit ul m2 2Mbit
+.fi
+
+\&... so "internet" tree under 1:1 and "router itself" as 1:999
+.
+.SH "LAYER2 ADAPTATION"
+.
+Please refer to \fBtc\-stab\fR(8)
+.
+.SH "SEE ALSO"
+.
+\fBtc\fR(8), \fBtc\-hfsc\fR(8), \fBtc\-stab\fR(8)
+
+Please direct bugreports and patches to: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
+.
+.SH "AUTHOR"
+.
+Manpage created by Michal Soltys (soltys@ziu.info)