if you mind.
running on arm kernel htb+fq_codel_fast
INFO: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU
0-...: (1 GPs behind) idle=0ab/141/0
softirq=2280/2285 fqs=5984
(t=6000 jiffies g=211 c=210 q=565)
Task dump for CPU 0:
tc R running 0 1024 890
Pete Heist writes:
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
>> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
>> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
>> we
That means that the conntrack numbers give an upper bound, no?
Best Regards
Sebastian
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 20:40, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> re: conntrack - I think the udp standard for holding a hole punch open
> is 2-3 minutes. I've
> seen 30 sec or less in the field.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6,
re: conntrack - I think the udp standard for holding a hole punch open
is 2-3 minutes. I've
seen 30 sec or less in the field.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:36 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > There was a very good paper or two (I think luca
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
> we could stick
> with 1024
Hi Dave,
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 19:22, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
> we could stick
>
There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
we could stick
with 1024 queues, a direct mapped hash, and a couple collisions.
cake
Interesting, sounds like a good data point for the ECN debate. I wonder if that
pathology happens at lower flow counts.
I’ve been getting into FreeNet’s backhaul. Four of their backhaul links, the
orange lines in the following map, are licensed spectrum full-duplex 100Mbit
wireless links (not
This version does indeed work against net-next. I managed to break
myself because I'd been fiddling with flows 32 in some cases, and my
version
returns ENOTSUPP for that which sqm doesn't catch... and ohhh
boy... htb with a 1000 packet fifo buffer fallback... SUCKS! :)
As for profiling, once
I'm presently compiling against net-next.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:12 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 2018, at 3:04 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, this should be a drop in replacement (presently) for fq_codel,
> > that compiles out of tree and rips out almost everything I don't
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 3:04 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Anyway, this should be a drop in replacement (presently) for fq_codel,
> that compiles out of tree and rips out almost everything I don't like.
>
> https://github.com/dtaht/fq_codel_fast
Cool…I’d give it a quick run but it doesn’t compile
It has been a long time since I profiled the kernel on small platforms.
* tc filtering has got rcu'd
* routing lookup code "improved"
* flow dissector grew massively
* fq_codel grew "features"
Anyway, this should be a drop in replacement (presently) for fq_codel,
that compiles out of tree and
12 matches
Mail list logo
