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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 02:27:09 +0300 From: Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@...il.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@...il.com>, "codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net" <codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net>, ath10k <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>, make-wifi-fast@...ts.bufferbloat.net, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, OpenWrt Development List <openwrt-devel@...ts.openwrt.org>, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com> Subject: Re: OpenWRT wrong adjustment of fq_codel defaults (Was: [Codel] fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood) On 16 May 2016 at 02:07, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-16 at 01:34 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > >> qdisc fq_codel 8003: parent :3 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 >> target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 1601271168 bytes 1057706 pkt (dropped 1422304, overlimits 0 requeues 17) >> backlog 1541252b 1018p requeues 17 >> maxpacket 1514 drop_overlimit 1422304 new_flow_count 35 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 1 > > Why do you have ce_threshold set ? You really should not (even if it > does not matter for the kind of traffic you have at this moment) No idea, it was there always. How do I unset it? Setting it to 0 doesn't help. > If your expected link speed is around 1Gbps, or 80,000 packets per > second, then you have to understand that 1024 packets limit is about 12 > ms at most. > > Even if the queue is full, max sojourn time of a packet would be 12 ms. > > I really do not see how 'target 80 ms' could be hit. Well, as I said, I've tried different options. Neither target 20ms (as Dave proposed) not 12ms save the situation. > You basically have FQ, with no Codel effect, but with the associated > cost of Codel (having to take timestamps) > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists