Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
From:	mailings@...ie.com
To:	mailings@...ie.com
Cc:	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Ferry Huberts" <mailings@...ie.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: netem: always adjust now/delay when not    
            reordering

>> On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 09:04 +0200, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>>> On 21/08/13 08:14, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 07:59 +0200, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>>> >> From: Ferry Huberts <ferry.huberts@...agic.nl>
>>> >>
>>> >> Not doing this (current behaviour) introduces reordering.
>>> >>
>>> >> The packet_len_2_sched_time call is the only thing that logically
> depends on q->rate, so move the now/delay adjustment out of the if.
>>> >>
>>> >> How to test:
>>> >> -----------
>>> >
>>> > I ask again :
>>> >
>>> > Did you test a config with both rate limiting and delay.
>>> (sorry for missing that question)
>>> Just did so and with rate limiting I get no reordering, which is
> logical
>>> looking at the code.
>>> The thing is, the evaluation q->rate is within the 'no-reordering'
> block
>>> and in the current situation you can get reordering (with that
> 'strange'
>>> command). My patch makes sure that no reordering will occur, and
> effectively 'clamps' the realised delay, which currently isn't done.
>>
>>
>> OK, let me be very clear.
>>
>> I would like you post the results of regression tests, to make sure that
> you do not add a new regression.
>>
>
> Since I'm new to netdev development and therefore the processes attached
> to it, let me ask where I can find such regression tests?
>
> I'm happy to run them once I know about them... ;-)
>
>
>> It seems that you want _us_ to check all this for you.
>>
>> With "rate 1Mbits delay 100ms 10ms", and ping probes sent every 100ms,
> the pong reply of _all_ probes should be between 90ms and 110ms
>>
>> Is it still the case after your patch ?
>>
>
> Yes it is.
>
> In the script I described in the commit message I replaced the line
>   tc qdisc add dev "${fields[1]}" handle 1 root netem delay 10ms 500ms
> with the line (1Mbit gave 'Illegal "rate"')
>   tc qdisc add dev "${fields[1]}" handle 1 root netem rate 1024000 delay
> 100ms 10ms
>
> The output then was (tried a 10 times):
> # ./netemreordering
> PING 192.168.160.1 (192.168.160.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=114 ms

Wow. And of course Murphy would do this.
This is the _only_ deviation there was and I copy&pasted it...

I re-checked and it really is the only one.
I re-ran 20 more times and all were ok.
Must have been a busy router I guess.

> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=109 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=106 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=100 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=111 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=92.2 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=99.8 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=254 time=91.4 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=254 time=97.4 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.160.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=254 time=95.5 ms
>
> --- 192.168.160.1 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 910ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 91.413/101.879/114.534/7.723 ms, pipe 2
>
>
> Is this enough?
> Please let me know, I'm happy to oblige.
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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