[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx6S34=20JG5CApcBAx9ePnpjju80QgNd8p+0iYrM8q_qkk1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:23:24 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance comparision / qdisc / no qdisc / queueing linux
kernel 4.12
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> Any of the current qdisc that do rate control are single threaded.
> Since bandwidth is a shared resource, the qdisc has to acquire a lock
> and update cache shared data structures.
>
> Don't expect HTB or HFSC to be free.
>
This is a well known problem and there have been several attempts to
address it over the years (a long time ago at Google I implemented a
horrible hack called "hold queue" that put a parallelized queue in
front of HTB. This eliminated the lock contention, but not without
side effects).
Now there's a new scheduler proposed by some Googlers called Carousel
that promises scalable host traffic shaping
(https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~amsmti3/files/carousel-sigcomm17.pdf).
Looks like they didn't implement a kernel Qdisc, but might be
interesting for someone to look into...
Tom
>>
>> 4.13-rc3 have kernel panic when deleting qdisc - will try to get panic trace
>
> Please do.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists