netdev - Re: [Codel] [RFC v2] fq_codel : interval servo on hosts

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: <1346773149.13121.44.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:39:09 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@...il.com>
Cc:	Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>,
	Tomas Hruby <thruby@...gle.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net" <codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFC v2] fq_codel : interval servo on hosts

On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 18:25 +0300, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> I think that in most cases, a long RTT flow and a short RTT flow on
> the same interface means that the long RTT flow isn't bottlenecked
> here, and therefore won't ever build up a significant queue - and that
> means you would want to track over the shorter interval. Is that a
> reasonable assumption?
> 

This would be reasonable, but if we have a shorter interval, this means
we could drop packets of the long RTT flow sooner than expected.

Thats because the drop_next value is setup on the previous packet, and
not based on the 'next packet'

Re-evaluating drop_next at the right time would need more cpu cycles.


--
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