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  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]
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:47:21 +0100
From:	Arend van Spriel <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
CC:	Michal Kazior <>,
	linux-wireless <>,
	Network Development <>,
Subject: Re: Throughput regression with `tcp: refine TSO autosizing`

On 01/30/15 14:19, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 11:29 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> Your suggestions are still based on the fact that you consider wireless
>> networking to be similar to ethernet, but as Michal indicated there are
>> some fundamental differences starting with CSMA/CD versus CSMA/CA. Also
>> the medium conditions are far from comparable. There is no shielding so
>> it needs to deal with interference and dynamically drops the link rate
>> so transmission of packets can take several milliseconds. Then with 11n
>> they came up with aggregation with sends up to 64 packets in a single
>> transmit over the air at worst case 6.5 Mbps (if I am not mistaken). The
>> parameter value for tcp_limit_output_bytes of 131072 means that it
>> allows queuing for about 1ms on a 1Gbps link, but I hope you can see
>> this is not realistic for dealing with all variances of the wireless
>> medium/standard. I suggested this as topic for the wireless workshop in
>> Otawa [1], but I can not attend there. Still hope that there will be
>> some discussions to get more awareness.
> Ever heard about bufferbloat ?

Sure. I am trying to get awareness about that in our wireless 
driver/firmware development teams. So bear with me.

> Have you read my suggestions and tried them ?
> You can adjust the limit per flow to pretty much you want. If you need
> 64 packets, just do the math. If in 2018 you need 128 packets, do the
> math again.
> I am very well aware that wireless wants aggregation, thank you.

Sorry if I offended you. I was just giving these as example combined 
with effective rate usable on the medium to say that the bandwidth is 
more dynamic in wireless and as such need dynamic change of queue depth. 
Now this can be done by making the fraction size as used in your 
suggestion adaptive to these conditions.

> 131072 bytes of queue on 40Gbit is not 1ms, but 26 usec of queueing, and
> we get line rate nevertheless.

I was saying it was about 1ms on *1Gbit* as the wireless TCP rates are 
moving into that direction in 11ac.

> We need this level of shallow queues (BQL, TSQ), to get very precise rtt
> estimations so that TCP has good entropy for its pacing, even in the 50
> usec rtt ranges.
> If we allowed 1ms of queueing, then a 40Gbit flow would queue 5 MBytes.
> This was terrible, because it increased cwnd and all sender queues to
> insane levels.

Indeed and that is what we would like to address in our wireless 
drivers. I will setup some experiments using the fraction sizing and 
post my findings. Again sorry if I offended you.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists