> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:06 am, Pete Heist wrote:
>
> when fq_codel is the qdisc, the eBPF action is only called "once in a while”
One difference between fq_codel and Cake is that the former - which has no
shaper - will "bypass" packets when it's empty and there's no back-pressure
filling it.
The APU hardware begs for smp support...
> On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:31 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> can't achieve full throughput.
>
> root@apu2:/etc/sqm# tc qdisc replace dev enp3s0 handle 10: root tbf
> burst 64k rate 9 latency 60ms
> root@apu2:/etc/sqm# tc qdisc add dev enp3s0 parent 10:0
Pete Heist writes:
> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety. I.e.,
if it can't prove your program is safe it is going to reject
The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of code around
and getting different error messages in an alien tongue. I might need to move
to some later code than what comes with Ubuntu 18.04. This example is helpful
to have though, thanks...
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 7:19 PM,
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:06 am, Pete Heist wrote:
>>
>> when fq_codel is the qdisc, the eBPF action is only called "once in a while”
>
> One difference between fq_codel and Cake is that the former - which has no
> shaper - will
Pete Heist writes:
>> On Aug 22, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:06 am, Pete Heist wrote:
>>>
>>> when fq_codel is the qdisc, the eBPF action is only called "once in a while”
>>
>> One difference between fq_codel and Cake is that the former - which
>>
Pete Heist writes:
>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 11:17 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>
>>> Well that’s good timing for me as I’m wrapping up a small utility/eBPF
>>> to classify an arbitrary username to either MAC or IP. Here’s the work
>>> in progress, which is not done yet as flow fairness is
The TC filter flow mapping override completely skipped the call to
cake_hash(); however that meant that the internal state was not being
updated, which ultimately leads to deadlocks in some configurations. Fix
that by passing the overridden flow ID into cake_hash() instead so it can
react
Jonathan Morton writes:
>> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:51 pm, Pete Heist wrote:
>>
>> "math between pkt pointer and 4294901760 is not allowed"
>
> As a possible clue here, 4294901760 == (2^32) - (2^16).
>
> I suspect both errors are being caused by the call to memcpy(). This
> potentially inlines a
On 08/22/2018 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Pete Heist writes:
>
>> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
>> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
>
> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety.
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Pete Heist writes:
>
>> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
>> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
>
> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes:
>>Lastly, if anyone has time to review even just a little code for what
>>is or is not good or idiomatic C, post an issue and I’d appreciate it.
>>Yes, I yield to the ‘goto’ proponents when it comes to error handling
>>and resource de-allocation. :)
>
> I'll take a
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:37 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Pete Heist writes:
>
>>> On Aug 22, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> One difference between fq_codel and Cake is that the former - which
>>> has no shaper - will "bypass" packets when it's empty and there's
> On 22 Aug, 2018, at 12:51 pm, Pete Heist wrote:
>
> "math between pkt pointer and 4294901760 is not allowed"
As a possible clue here, 4294901760 == (2^32) - (2^16).
I suspect both errors are being caused by the call to memcpy(). This
potentially inlines a substantial amount of code which
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> adding a basic shaper to fq_codel itself is kind of trivial. You need
> to check if you are shaping
>
> this was 40% faster than tbf + fq_codel in the good ole days and I
Aha, ok, I didn't there was that much to be gained in serial
adding a basic shaper to fq_codel itself is kind of trivial. You need
to check if you are shaping
https://github.com/dtaht/sch_tart/blob/master/sch_tart.c#L329
Calculate the next start time:
https://github.com/dtaht/sch_tart/blob/master/sch_tart.c#L392
and calc the rate in setup and init the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > adding a basic shaper to fq_codel itself is kind of trivial. You need
> > to check if you are shaping
> >
> > this was 40% faster than tbf + fq_codel in the good ole days and I
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2018 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Pete Heist writes:
>>
>> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety. I.e.,
>> if it can't prove your program is safe it is going to reject it. Which
>>
18 matches
Mail list logo
