From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Nathan Williams <nathan@traverse.com.au>,
Karl Hiramoto <karl@hiramoto.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>
Subject: Re: PPPoE performance regression
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:21:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120613172122.GF2361@kvack.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1339606383.14785.14.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm looking at the class of device on which OpenWRT runs. Linux is *on*
> the router with the ADSL port, not connected to it via Ethernet.
Ah, yes, that's a worthwhile pursuit.
> And even if it *were* rare... this is the case that *should* work best,
> where we have complete control of the hardware. There's no excuse for
> the behaviour that we currently see with PPPoE on BR2684.
*nod*
> I think that's largely true of BQL in general, isn't it? That's OK; it's
> a config option. I suspect if I make this accounting of PPPoE / L2TP
> packets conditional on BQL (or perhaps on a separate config option
> PPP_BQL) that ought to address your concern about the cases where you
> don't need it?
That would help.
On the whole question of PPPoE over intermediate ethernet links to ADSL
modems, I think it would be possible to limit latency by implementing a
sliding window clocked using LCP ECHO requests. Does this sound worthwhile
implementing? What sort of queue depths are you looking at for the ATM
devices you're working on?
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-13 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1339143949.24571.72.camel@dualcore.traverse>
[not found] ` <1339144110.13998.1.camel@i7.infradead.org>
[not found] ` <1339144954.24571.80.camel@dualcore.traverse>
[not found] ` <1339147045.13998.3.camel@i7.infradead.org>
[not found] ` <1339289425.2661.27.camel@laptop>
2012-06-10 8:32 ` PPPoE performance regression David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 9:57 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 13:50 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 15:55 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2012-06-13 16:11 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 16:31 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2012-06-13 16:32 ` David Laight
2012-06-13 16:59 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 16:53 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 17:21 ` Benjamin LaHaise [this message]
2012-06-13 17:43 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-14 6:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2012-06-14 6:49 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-14 10:35 ` David Woodhouse
2012-06-13 20:17 ` Karl Hiramoto
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=20120613172122.GF2361@kvack.org \
--to=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=blogic@openwrt.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=karl@hiramoto.org \
--cc=nathan@traverse.com.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).