Re: [PATCH] sch_sfq: revert dont put new flow at the end of flows

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le mercredi 14 mars 2012 à 12:32 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit :
>> ons, 14 03 2012 kl. 04:52 +0000, skrev Dave Taht:
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > As the depth of the sfq queue increases it gets increasingly hard to
>> > trigger the problem. I've been using values in the 200-300 range, and
>> > in combination with red, haven't seen it happen.
>>
>> I don't think you should adjust the "depth", but instead "limit" or
>> "flows".

Sorry, I'd meant 'limit' above, with limiting the per flow depth (at
4Mbit depths of 12-24 are good + red doing byte limiting starting at
3000), and having lots of flows in the hash....

Anyway, as this change to sfq currently has pathological edge cases, I suggest:

1) reverting this patch (the new features of sfq - hugely increased
number of flows, and increased limit, head drop/marking support, red,
ecn, etc, can stay - and are rather nice in and of themselves)

2) trying again, but not in the context of sfq - starting with sfq as
a base, with a copy and rename, getting the iproute infrastructure
around it working, more thorough tests going. I'll note that while
flow management is needed, it needent be red-based.

nsfq? efq?


>>
>> The problem can be solved by SFQ parameter tuning.  Perhaps, we could
>> just change the default parameters?

I can't think of a way to make existing users of sfq not hit this problem
if they are overriding the default params in the first place. thus my
suggestion we start again in a new namespace.

>> The problem occurs when all flows have ONE packet, then sfq_drop()
>> cannot find a good flow to drop packets from...
>>
>> This situation can occur because the default setting is "limit=127"
>> packets and "flows=127".  If we just make sure that "limit" > "flows",
>> then one flow with >=2 packets should exist, which is then chosen for
>> drop.
>> My practical experiments show that "limit" should be between 10-20
>> packets larger than "flows" (I'm not completely sure why this is
>> needed).

flows and/or depth?

if flows, then we could drop the flows parameter entirely and just use limit
to calculate flows. But I think that it's more subtle than just this.

more thorough tests exploring the pathological cases are needed. I'm on it.

>>
>
> There are many ways to starve SFQ if we dont revert the patch or add new
> logic in linux-3.4
>
> Even if we change default settings, we can have following situation :
>
> SFQ in a state with several regular flows in queue, correctly behaving
> because they are nice.
>
> loop repeat_as_many_times_you_can_think
>  enqueue : packet comes for a new flow X.
>           OK lets favor this new flow against 'old' ones.
>  dequeue : takes the packet for flow X.
>           forget about flow X since dequeue all its packets.
> endloop
>
> All other flows are in a frozen state.

some thoughts

1) Keeping more history around during the next X packet deliveries would help.
2) in case of being close up against various limits randomly enqueue on tail

I note that htb introduces a window for new flows to win
pathologically by holding onto a packet
which perhaps it should be peeking (or so I understand it)
>
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net