[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130530095117.503eeee7@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:51:17 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
David Miller <davem@...hat.com>, j.vimal@...il.com,
Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@...et.fi>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bloat@...ts.bufferbloat.net, Dan Siemon <dan@...erfire.com>,
Jim Gettys <jg@...edesktop.org>,
Steven Barth <cyrus@...nwrt.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: tc linklayer ADSL calc broken after commit 56b765b79 (htb:
improved accuracy at high rates)
On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:52:04 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 15:13 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > I recently discovered that the (traffic control) tc linklayer
> > calculations for ATM/ADSL have been broken by:
> > commit 56b765b79 (htb: improved accuracy at high rates).
> >
> > Thus, people shaping on ADSL links, using e.g.:
> > tc class add ... htb rate X ceil Y linklayer atm overhead 10
> >
> > Will no-longer get ATM cell tax/overhead adjusted.
> >
> > How can we solve/fix this?
> > Perhaps we can change to use the "stab" system instead (as it does
> > not seem to be broken by the commit).
> >
[...]
>
> stab suffers from the same problem : its table driven, so works only
> for packet smaller than a given size.
You are referring to GSO/GRO packets. Yes, one must disable GSO for
this to work. Regardless ATM/ADSL, you should disable GSO when shaping
at low speeds. Sending 64000 byte on a 512Kbit/s takes approx 1 sec.
http://netoptimizer.blogspot.dk/2010/12/buffer-bloat-calculations.html
> I am not sure it will solve the ATM logic (with the 5 bytes overhead
> per 48 bytes cell)
Are you talking about, that for GSO frames we are not adding a encap
overhead to each "sub" skb.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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