netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed

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

Message-ID: <4A282216.20203@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:35:50 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Antonio Almeida <vexwek@...il.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, devik@....cz,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Vladimir Ivashchenko <hazard@...ncoudi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Antonio Almeida wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>>> Antonio, could you give this patch a try (with all the previous) and
>>> repeat those HFSC tests you did before (plus maybe a few tries with
>>> lower rates)?
>> For me, HTB values are just perfect! I would say that they're better
>> than HFSC, since sent rate stays below the configured ceil (but that's
>> for me)
>> After applying the patch you sent (to sch_hfsc.c) I got these values for HFSC:
>>
>> configuration	analyser RX	error (%)
>>   10000000	10062688		0,63
>>   20000000	20096961		0,48
>>   30000000	30135028		0,45
>>   40000000	40186190		0,47
>>   50000000	50294890		0,59
>>   60000000	60294553		0,49
>>   70000000	70284220		0,41
>>   80000000	80414272		0,52
>>   90000000	90354675		0,39
>> 100000000	100453024		0,45
>> 200000000	200962041		0,48
>> 250000000	251467886		0,59
>> 300000000	301422613		0,47
>> 400000000	402123479		0,53
>> 500000000	502356820		0,47
>> 550000000	552988253		0,54
>> 600000000	602956905		0,49
>> 700000000	703405632		0,49
>> 750000000	753949085		0,53
>> 800000000	804315169		0,54
>> 900000000	904584208		0,51
>>
>> As usually, generating 970Mbit/s of tcp traffic of 800 bytes packets.
> 
> Very nice, it looks like HFSC precision isn't affected by these changes.
> ...
>> If you'd like any other values just ask. I'll be away till the fourteenth.
>> Thanks a lot! Good job!
> 
> OK, I'll browse other schedulers, and if there is nothing suspicious
> I'll submit these patches.

Please give me a day to have another look at this, I didn't find
any time today.

In most areas the overflows are only occuring when crossing
IMO unreasonable boundaries (but I've been wrong about that
before), but tc_cbq_calc_maxidle() is still making me nervous.
--
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