Re: tuntap: Overload handling

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 18:42 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> Hmm so ~1000 packets in the tun queue is not enough?
> You always have the option to increase it some more ...
> 
> > You should ask Michael S. Tsirkin, as he removed the flow control
> > in commit 5d097109257c03a71845729f8db6b5770c4bbedc
> > (tun: only queue packets on device)
> > 
> 
> Eric in the past you said the following things
> (http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1204.1/00784.html)
> > > In your case I would just not use qdisc at all, like other virtual
> > > devices.
> ...
> > > Anyway, with a 500 packet limit in TUN queue itself, qdisc layer should
> > > be always empty. Whats the point storing more than 500 packets for a
> > > device ? Thats a latency killer.
> you don't think this applies, anymore?
> 

Users have the choice to setup a qdisc or not.

Having no qdisc can help raw performance, at the expense of bufferbloat.
Thats all I was saying.

It seems tun.c has no longer the possibility to effectively use a qdisc,
(allowing the queue to buildup at qdisc layer)