netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] tcp: TCP Small Queues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:46:35 -0700
From:	Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ycheng@...gle.com,
	dave.taht@...il.com, codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com,
	mattmathis@...gle.com, andrewmcgr@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] tcp: TCP Small Queues

>> Considering these two points, why TSQ over the Codel feedback
>> approach?
>
> I dont think they compete. They are in fact complementary.
>
> If you use codel/fq_codel + TSQ, you have both per flow limitation in
> qdisc (TSQ) + sojourn time aware and multi flow aware feedback.

Makes sense. My conjecture is when using codel/fq_codel qdisc, the
need for TSQ will diminish. But as you said... good part of TSQ is it
limits per-flow queuing for any qdisc structure, even those not using
codel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html