On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/12/2012, at 10:37 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> This can help if you really want to avoid a thick flow sharing a thin >>> flow bucket, but given that all packets are going eventually into the >>> Internet (or equivalent crowded network), its not really a clear win. >> >> I've been trying to grok the fq_codel code by reading through it while >> following the discussion in the article, and I'm having a bit of trouble >> squaring the thin/thick (or "hog"/"non-hog") flow designation of the >> article with the code. As far as I can tell from the code, there are two >> lists, called new_flows and old_flows; and a flow starts out as 'new' >> and stays that way until it has sent a quantum of bytes or codel fails >> to dequeue a packet from it, whereupon it is moved to the end of the >> old_flows list. It then stays in the old_flows list for the rest of its >> "life". > > 'new' is what I was calling 'thin', and 'old' is the 'thick' list.
The phrasing that I use for this stuff is "sparse" rather than "thin", if that helps any. TCP mice are VERY sparse as they are a function of RTT, and thus most web flows on a home router end up staying in the new flow queue. -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
