[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1360861290.6884.55.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:01:30 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Pöhn
<sebastian.poehn@...glemail.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tuntap: Overload handling
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 18:42 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hmm so ~1000 packets in the tun queue is not enough?
> You always have the option to increase it some more ...
>
> > You should ask Michael S. Tsirkin, as he removed the flow control
> > in commit 5d097109257c03a71845729f8db6b5770c4bbedc
> > (tun: only queue packets on device)
> >
>
> Eric in the past you said the following things
> (http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1204.1/00784.html)
> > > In your case I would just not use qdisc at all, like other virtual
> > > devices.
> ...
> > > Anyway, with a 500 packet limit in TUN queue itself, qdisc layer should
> > > be always empty. Whats the point storing more than 500 packets for a
> > > device ? Thats a latency killer.
> you don't think this applies, anymore?
>
Users have the choice to setup a qdisc or not.
Having no qdisc can help raw performance, at the expense of bufferbloat.
Thats all I was saying.
It seems tun.c has no longer the possibility to effectively use a qdisc,
(allowing the queue to buildup at qdisc layer)
--
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