* CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity
@ 2007-01-22 14:24 Gerrit Renker
2007-03-06 2:30 ` Ian McDonald
2007-03-06 9:52 ` Gerrit Renker
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gerrit Renker @ 2007-01-22 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dccp
I have performed experiments which confirm that
1) when t_ipi < t_gran, the transmit rate is effectively out of control
2) when t_ipi > t_gran, the actual transmit rate is about a factor of 3
higher than s/t_ipi would permit.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gerrit/dccp/docs/packet_scheduling/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity 2007-01-22 14:24 CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity Gerrit Renker @ 2007-03-06 2:30 ` Ian McDonald 2007-03-06 9:52 ` Gerrit Renker 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Ian McDonald @ 2007-03-06 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dccp On 1/23/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > I have performed experiments which confirm that > > 1) when t_ipi < t_gran, the transmit rate is effectively out of control > 2) when t_ipi > t_gran, the actual transmit rate is about a factor of 3 > higher than s/t_ipi would permit. > > http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gerrit/dccp/docs/packet_scheduling/ I've been going over this and wonder if you ever got to the bottom of it by instrumenting it or similar as it doesn't make sense to me.... We add t_ipi to t_nom after each packet so even coarse grained scheduling shouldn't do this. Ian -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz WAND Network Research Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity 2007-01-22 14:24 CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity Gerrit Renker 2007-03-06 2:30 ` Ian McDonald @ 2007-03-06 9:52 ` Gerrit Renker 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Gerrit Renker @ 2007-03-06 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dccp | > I have performed experiments which confirm that | > | > 1) when t_ipi < t_gran, the transmit rate is effectively out of control | > 2) when t_ipi > t_gran, the actual transmit rate is about a factor of 3 | > higher than s/t_ipi would permit. | > | > http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gerrit/dccp/docs/packet_scheduling/ | | I've been going over this and wonder if you ever got to the bottom of | it by instrumenting it or similar as it doesn't make sense to me.... | We add t_ipi to t_nom after each packet so even coarse grained | scheduling shouldn't do this. The graphs on that web page are actually the result of instrumenting the kernel. There are further instrumentation tests, the results of which are on http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gerrit/dccp/docs/impact_of_tx_queue_lenghts/ The problem is not in adding t_ipi, but rather in schedule_timeout which works at HZ granularity. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-06 9:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-01-22 14:24 CCID 3 bounded by OS scheduling granularity Gerrit Renker 2007-03-06 2:30 ` Ian McDonald 2007-03-06 9:52 ` Gerrit Renker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox