From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1ACC2D0DC for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 17:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EDB20866 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 17:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ZUyEc1xO" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 95EDB20866 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D311C13A; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 18:11:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4A31C12E; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 18:11:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id p17so6310313wmb.0; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:11:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J0Kw8ehqftV+A0Wkx6iYZcIBpptcF2xzXs6CXqT6X5Q=; b=ZUyEc1xOeIjIg1relP1DtyX9G/hPYf4y1rIEzAqvjRdYRNWbHJHmv02xyQK+MAwGe+ BZ9/1EqFuABspfu88uVfJbJrZSd02r0I7P3BZ6NqBPnvyMSb6UerpO0JdiJiRZsOFM3i QGXn9HqyQgZE2Fp/em8JHf3T6gvOYg5X4t6yLY3YmNdd2J3pywtlskO7PdyAwQ39+EUX C/z9GbIT6jjFniIGa5LwdqbgSsfKsLDF+HStFUQ9X1SSf1JySYK9v83x+lX2bkTQGcRV IBu+rdONySqAfvf/9q6+u38qEgQLIfwvlOUzm785p+Jgz4ghnfTeHMraK/wCA/kklhFV 0gyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J0Kw8ehqftV+A0Wkx6iYZcIBpptcF2xzXs6CXqT6X5Q=; b=m/W91VXCV+vefIUupDkAHuSd9QGDLoIpiAT9XeDvw2KTieCMjdnsoUTFJuihIV3SHR fGnb9ZZfQpSofbOSExFzngYx7FozTRzv2aTGrzWtIJtsk5RAuZjWzj7p3Y+F9+Y+DU7x cu9pmkpPboVPgVM+XpmZbIZQ2UP8MA4r2iRpW1OdAM9WMm4TSNsg/vxi+cyg0C0Xwd03 8SCSm/9ikOGRBx1EzDrDhoWJtsZqQ1mgVzT8qPknFMmEwD8cytaESiYfYrYDMe3Jv3y9 0KFXWv7yEFICYx6MnntL65uYtYgYIjPYLX9qi6/ZaPi8fSOeU54e/nDLCRW2FC/1zlvu rrwA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWiQrFSgsckZ8npUEHcO515iM//rsjWLKD8Ql5SuCsrFQLaU+a1 heWyqCrzRo552VaDsJH2kLOW1uwbbCZBPeVY9dA8FuVd X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7cya1E7/125dt3F0sPcKYooCL4IHQCWl4NTfYmYkfP00De6Zk1/ERUGAqYHZJSOgCd2/Fp9Dbb6WTCJ/AtI0= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c38c:: with SMTP id s12mr15184401wmj.96.1577985078721; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:11:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tarun Anand Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 22:41:07 +0530 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Cc: "Mohit P. Tahiliani" , Archit Pandey , Sanjana Krishnam Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] Testing the working of QoS with RED AQM enabled vs RED AQM disabled X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Our goal is to understand the how the DPDK QoS Framework works. In order to understand its functioning, we ran the sample QoS application. Additionally , we want to test how it works with and without the RED AQM enabled. Despite two different configurations - one with RED enabled and the other without RED enabled, we obtain very similar queue length results. We would like to know what setup is required to test the two scenarios .