[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120613172122.GF2361@kvack.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:21:22 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Nathan Williams <nathan@...verse.com.au>,
Karl Hiramoto <karl@...amoto.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: PPPoE performance regression
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm looking at the class of device on which OpenWRT runs. Linux is *on*
> the router with the ADSL port, not connected to it via Ethernet.
Ah, yes, that's a worthwhile pursuit.
> And even if it *were* rare... this is the case that *should* work best,
> where we have complete control of the hardware. There's no excuse for
> the behaviour that we currently see with PPPoE on BR2684.
*nod*
> I think that's largely true of BQL in general, isn't it? That's OK; it's
> a config option. I suspect if I make this accounting of PPPoE / L2TP
> packets conditional on BQL (or perhaps on a separate config option
> PPP_BQL) that ought to address your concern about the cases where you
> don't need it?
That would help.
On the whole question of PPPoE over intermediate ethernet links to ADSL
modems, I think it would be possible to limit latency by implementing a
sliding window clocked using LCP ECHO requests. Does this sound worthwhile
implementing? What sort of queue depths are you looking at for the ATM
devices you're working on?
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists