From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <acahalan@gmail.com>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: txqueuelen has wrong units; should be time
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:10:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1298898640.2941.256.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110228134338.1241484mkljbz4w0@hayate.sektori.org>
Le lundi 28 février 2011 à 13:43 +0200, Jussi Kivilinna a écrit :
> Quoting Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>:
>
> > Le dimanche 27 février 2011 à 12:55 +0200, Jussi Kivilinna a écrit :
> >> Quoting Albert Cahalan <acahalan@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Eric Dumazet
> >> <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Le dimanche 27 février 2011 à 08:02 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> >> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Nanoseconds seems fine; it's unlikely you'd ever want
> >> >>> > more than 4.2 seconds (32-bit unsigned) of queue.
> >> > ...
> >> >> Problem is some machines have slow High Resolution timing services.
> >> >>
> >> >> _If_ we have a time limit, it will probably use the low resolution (aka
> >> >> jiffies), unless high resolution services are cheap.
> >> >
> >> > As long as that is totally internal to the kernel and never
> >> > getting exposed by some API for setting the amount, sure.
> >> >
> >> >> I was thinking not having an absolute hard limit, but an EWMA based one.
> >> >
> >> > The whole point is to prevent stale packets, especially to prevent
> >> > them from messing with TCP, so I really don't think so. I suppose
> >> > you do get this to some extent via early drop.
> >>
> >> I made simple hack on sch_fifo with per packet time limits
> >> (attachment) this weekend and have been doing limited testing on
> >> wireless link. I think hardlimit is fine, it's simple and does
> >> somewhat same as what packet(-hard)limited buffer does, drops packets
> >> when buffer is 'full'. My hack checks for timed out packets on
> >> enqueue, might be wrong approach (on other hand might allow some more
> >> burstiness).
> >>
> >
> >
> > Qdisc should return to caller a good indication packet is queued or
> > dropped at enqueue() time... not later (aka : never)
> >
> > Accepting a packet at t0, and dropping it later at t0+limit without
> > giving any indication to caller is a problem.
> >
> > This is why I suggested using an EWMA plus a probabilist drop or
> > congestion indication (NET_XMIT_CN) to caller at enqueue() time.
> >
> > The absolute time limit you are trying to implement should be checked at
> > dequeue time, to cope with enqueue bursts or pauses on wire.
> >
>
> Would it be better to implement this as generic feature instead of
> qdisc specific? Have qdisc_enqueue_root do ewma check:
Problem is you can have several virtual queues in a qdisc.
For example, pfifo_fast has 3 bands. You could have a global ewma with
high values, but you still want to let a high priority packet going
through...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-28 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-27 5:44 txqueuelen has wrong units; should be time Albert Cahalan
2011-02-27 7:02 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2011-02-27 7:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-27 8:27 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-02-27 10:55 ` Jussi Kivilinna
2011-02-27 20:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-27 21:32 ` Jussi Kivilinna
2011-02-28 11:43 ` Jussi Kivilinna
2011-02-28 13:10 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-02-28 18:31 ` Jussi Kivilinna
2011-02-28 16:11 ` John W. Linville
2011-02-28 16:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-28 16:55 ` John W. Linville
2011-02-28 17:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-28 21:45 ` John Heffner
2011-03-01 4:11 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-03-01 4:18 ` David Miller
2011-03-01 6:54 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-03-01 7:25 ` David Miller
2011-03-01 7:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-01 19:37 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-03-01 20:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-01 20:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-02 3:10 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2011-03-02 20:25 ` Chris Friesen
2011-03-01 5:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-01 5:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-27 23:33 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-02-28 11:23 ` Jussi Kivilinna
2011-03-02 21:54 ` [RFC LOL OMG] pfifo_lat: qdisc that limits dequeueing based on estimated link latency John W. Linville
2011-03-02 22:08 ` John W. Linville
2011-03-03 12:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-02-28 15:38 ` txqueuelen has wrong units; should be time Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2011-02-28 16:37 ` Albert Cahalan
2011-02-28 17:45 ` John W. Linville
2011-02-28 17:20 ` Bill Sommerfeld
2011-02-28 21:51 ` John Heffner
2011-03-01 0:46 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2011-03-02 6:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-03-02 6:41 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2011-03-02 7:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-03-02 16:41 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2011-03-02 16:50 ` Eric Dumazet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1298898640.2941.256.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=acahalan@gmail.com \
--cc=jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=swmike@swm.pp.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox