On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:09 -0700, Andrew McGregor wrote: > On 6/08/2012, at 10:50 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This discussion is getting mildly off-track. My intent in posting this patch > > was to prove how wrong the "ecn mark at target" idea was by example, > > and in doing so, shed light on those new to codel, on how the algorithm > > actually works, and to encourage those that didn't grok it, to read and > > run the code in whatever scenarios would help more people to > > grokking in fullness. > > > > I hadn't expected to twiddle a bug! > > Well, so drop at target is wrong wrt deployed TCPs. Ok, fine. > > So, instead, how about this: mark instead of dropping, but only for > the first few iterations around the while loop in dequeue (so that > huge backlogs can be drained). The question then is, how many is a > few? I suppose that can be answered empirically. > > Andrew
Lets take the analogy with RED. Once a MAX_THRESH was reached, it did a hard_mark. So we could choose a threshold to drop instead of marking. Possible easy choices : 1) A threshold on sojourn time. For example force_drop = 2 * target 2) A threshold on 'count'. For example force_drop if count > 1000 _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel