Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Sebastian Moeller wrote: On Apr 26, 2018, at 09:26, Jonathan Morton wrote: Genuine question: I have a superpacket circa 64K, this is a lump of data in a tcp flow. I have another small VOIP packet, it’s latency sensitive. If I split the super

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

> I really liked you initial idea to make the threshold when to segment a > superpacket based on the duration that packet would hogg the wire/shaper, as > that gives an intuitive feel for the worst case inter-flow latency induced. > Especially this would allow on many links intermediate sized

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

I thought the discussion was only about GSO/TSO. Also, isn't GRO/LRO incompatible with routing? Anyway, I was just supporting your interpretation of what Eric potentially means. /Jonas On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Jonas Mårtensson

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

Jonas Mårtensson writes: > "I *think* that what Eric means is that the GSO logic should automatically > size the GSO superpackets so the latency cost is negligible for the actual > link rate." > > Something like this? > > https://lwn.net/Articles/564979/ > >

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

--- Begin Message --- > On 26 Apr 2018, at 08:26, Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> Genuine question: I have a superpacket circa 64K, this is a lump of data in >> a tcp flow. I have another small VOIP packet, it’s latency sensitive. If I >> split the super packet into

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes: >> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:45, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> >> For those who have not been following the discussion on the upstreaming >> patches, here's an update: >> >> >> >> So please do test the current git

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

> Genuine question: I have a superpacket circa 64K, this is a lump of data in > a tcp flow. I have another small VOIP packet, it’s latency sensitive. If I > split the super packet into individual 1.5K packets as they would be on the > wire, I can insert my VOIP packet at suitable place in

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

Ryan Mounce writes: >> On 26 Apr 2018, at 16:09, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> >> Ryan Mounce writes: >> >>> I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after >>> all :) >>> >>> Eric obviously understands this

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 16:09, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Ryan Mounce writes: > >> I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after all >> :) >> >> Eric obviously understands this stuff a lot better than me, it looks >> like there

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

Ryan Mounce writes: > I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after all > :) > > Eric obviously understands this stuff a lot better than me, it looks > like there are two issues? > - Lack of minimum length check for TCP header, should be fairly >

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:40:29 +0930 > Ryan Mounce wrote: > >> I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after all >> :) >> >> Eric obviously understands this stuff

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:40:29 +0930 Ryan Mounce wrote: > I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after all > :) > > Eric obviously understands this stuff a lot better than me, it looks > like there are two issues? > - Lack of minimum length check

Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

I'll investigate making the ACK filtering code safe, it is my mess after all :) Eric obviously understands this stuff a lot better than me, it looks like there are two issues? - Lack of minimum length check for TCP header, should be fairly straight-forward to fix - The possibility of unsafely

[Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

For those who have not been following the discussion on the upstreaming patches, here's an update: - I've just pushed patches to only split GSO packets when shaping below one gigabit; and hopefully made the overhead compensation code deal gracefully with GSO packets if someone for some reason