From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from g4t3428.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.56]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1agbfw-0008DZ-Bx for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:25:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFCv2 0/3] mac80211: implement fq codel References: <1458123478-1795-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <20160316185531.GA1771@localhost> From: Rick Jones Message-ID: <56EAE85F.3010407@hpe.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:24:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Dave Taht , Michal Kazior Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Jasmine Strong , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Network Development On 03/17/2016 10:00 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > netperf's udp_rr is not how much traffic conventionally behaves. It > doesn't do tcp slow start or congestion control in particular... Nor would one expect it to need to, unless one were using "burst mode" to have more than one transaction inflight at one time. And unless one uses the test-specific -e option to provide a very crude retransmission mechanism based on a socket read timeout, neither does UDP_RR recover from lost datagrams. happy benchmarking, rick jones http://www.netperf.org/ _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from g9t1613g.houston.hp.com ([15.240.0.71]:41029 "EHLO g9t1613g.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967359AbcCQRYw (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:24:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFCv2 0/3] mac80211: implement fq codel To: Dave Taht , Michal Kazior References: <1458123478-1795-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <20160316185531.GA1771@localhost> Cc: Network Development , linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Jasmine Strong , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Rick Jones Message-ID: <56EAE85F.3010407@hpe.com> (sfid-20160317_182457_240634_E47A591A) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:24:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/17/2016 10:00 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > netperf's udp_rr is not how much traffic conventionally behaves. It > doesn't do tcp slow start or congestion control in particular... Nor would one expect it to need to, unless one were using "burst mode" to have more than one transaction inflight at one time. And unless one uses the test-specific -e option to provide a very crude retransmission mechanism based on a socket read timeout, neither does UDP_RR recover from lost datagrams. happy benchmarking, rick jones http://www.netperf.org/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFCv2 0/3] mac80211: implement fq codel Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:24:47 -0700 Message-ID: <56EAE85F.3010407@hpe.com> References: <1458123478-1795-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <20160316185531.GA1771@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Network Development , linux-wireless , "ath10k-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Jasmine Strong , "codel-JXvr2/1DY2fm6VMwtOF2vx4hnT+Y9+D1@public.gmane.org" , make-wifi-fast-JXvr2/1DY2fm6VMwtOF2vx4hnT+Y9+D1@public.gmane.org To: Dave Taht , Michal Kazior Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 03/17/2016 10:00 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > netperf's udp_rr is not how much traffic conventionally behaves. It > doesn't do tcp slow start or congestion control in particular... Nor would one expect it to need to, unless one were using "burst mode" to have more than one transaction inflight at one time. And unless one uses the test-specific -e option to provide a very crude retransmission mechanism based on a socket read timeout, neither does UDP_RR recover from lost datagrams. happy benchmarking, rick jones http://www.netperf.org/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html