[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iLhwHR4zs6bXBrC2D73eG=+BO04DrnQHKMjK_UWrgpyOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:43:11 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
> Oleksandr,
>
> Thanks for the detailed report! Yes, this sounds like an issue in BBR. We
> have not run into this one in our team, but we will try to work with you to
> fix this.
>
> Would you be able to take a sender-side tcpdump trace of the slow BBR
> transfer ("v4.13 + BBR + fq_codel == Not OK")? Packet headers only would be
> fine. Maybe something like:
>
> tcpdump -w /tmp/test.pcap -c1000000 -s 100 -i eth0 port $PORT
>
> Thanks!
> neal
On baremetal and using latest net tree, I get pretty normal results at
least, on 40Gbit NIC,
with pfifo_fast, fq and fq_codel.
# tc qd replace dev eth0 root fq
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
25627
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
25897
# tc qd replace dev eth0 root fq_codel
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
22246
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
25228
# tc qd replace dev eth0 root pfifo_fast
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
25454
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
25508
Powered by blists - more mailing lists