Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?

Kazu Yamamoto ( 山本和彦 ) <kazu@iij.ad.jp> Tue, 24 January 2017 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47441294E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:58:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iij.ad.jp
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gapa3polYwfx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2271294E0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cWA09-0006mj-Ba for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:55:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:55:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cWA09-0006mj-Ba@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kazu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1cWA04-0006lO-Mv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:55:40 +0000
Received: from mo901.iij.ad.jp ([202.232.31.77] helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <kazu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1cW9zy-0007gH-7x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:55:35 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1;a=rsa-sha256;c=relaxed/simple;d=iij.ad.jp;h=Date: Message-Id:To:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; i=kazu@iij.ad.jp; s=omgo2; t=1485298510; x=1486508110; bh=0sQII9ZNT654OUljVshmXcA5QvuqhANjM9bPn7uFnFk=; b=fZcOvfrgn2nYSIPz7PzL/uGrPao 0azK0dZ4xhVDvl49Aggx9xJW4i5oQN92+iPK8kSNdzMw8DSOEl2LiPBJEx/ZKHNA0oU9t+5j/yhMY WpHWgR3gqu/qTuoqgRpXQ/MKVzu/DRtXzcntKx1RiD1oP82//CW5zmONGQGeNa7DIdHi68/zhDUo3 ZsVSIeTJAqznSTHPbl7hM0dteDD4DKZvSNH00lwHB5v3iRjvllkXEmGHnZ5EbGb3Kvradsl9Knf8p ryM1jsemhA6GneFslvyrw7QNUYU+Lw4sxgwj6GtryGDEv7NbAIdf8Ip6fANVlARFbNUE5UbFq3ybI w/pWwfA==;
Received: by omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo901) id v0OMt95p006802; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:55:09 +0900
X-MXL-Hash: 5887db4d55235414-336fcf2bfb9655feeacc1fb77a3850fad6cbf9aa
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:55:10 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20170125.075510.1795999132739277437.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Kazu Yamamoto (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?=) <kazu@iij.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CA+3+x5EdkLSAR2gWR9TT72o2Tg4Z_xKXMh8yVREYD7mvNuLB8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170124.165356.870174430965764062.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <900A5D6B-0752-470E-840C-4518D933DD09@greenbytes.de> <CA+3+x5EdkLSAR2gWR9TT72o2Tg4Z_xKXMh8yVREYD7mvNuLB8w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=202.232.31.77; envelope-from=kazu@iij.ad.jp; helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cW9zy-0007gH-7x 33cbaecc2cf3a27db4947d71e48b478d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20170125.075510.1795999132739277437.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33368
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Tom,

>> http://www.mew.org/~kazu/material/2015-http2-priority2.pdf
>> http://www.mew.org/~kazu/doc/paper/http2-haskell-2016.pdf
> 
> Thanks. IIUC, the algorithms described in both links are still at least
> O(depth), which can be O(n) for dependency trees generated by certain
> clients such as Chrome.

Yes. Your understanding is correct.

If a browser creates a list-like tree, I think it is misuse of priority.
And servers should limit the depth of trees.

--Kazu