On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 10:52 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> Sorry for coming late to the discussion.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:42:16AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-m
Hi Eric
Sorry for coming late to the discussion.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:42:16AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> > He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
> > of us guessed what he was trying to get at.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
>> of us guessed what he was trying to get at. That's what I was
>> complaining about.
>
> My big complain i
At 12:39 +0100 on 16 Apr (1429187952), George Dunlap wrote:
> Your comment lists three benefits:
> 1. better RTT estimation
> 2. faster recovery
> 3. high rates
>
> #3 is just marketing fluff; it's also contradicted by the statement that
> immediately follows it -- i.e., there are drivers for whic
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
> of us guessed what he was trying to get at. That's what I was
> complaining about.
My big complain is that I suggested to test to double the sysctl, which
gave goo
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 12:39 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 07:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Do not expect me to fight bufferbloat alone. Be part of the challenge,
> > instead of trying to get back to proven bad solutions.
>
> I tried that. I wrote a description of what I thought the
On 04/15/2015 07:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Do not expect me to fight bufferbloat alone. Be part of the challenge,
> instead of trying to get back to proven bad solutions.
I tried that. I wrote a description of what I thought the situation
was, so that you could correct me if my understanding w
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, David Laight wrote:
> ISTM that you are changing the wrong knob.
> You need to change something that affects the global amount of pending tx
> data,
> not the amount that can be buffered by a single connection.
Well it seems like the problem is that the global a
On 04/16/2015 10:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> So mid term, it would be much more beneficial if you attempt fix the
> underlying driver issues that actually cause high tx completion delays,
> instead of reintroducing bufferbloat. So that we all can move forward
> and not backwards in time.
Yes,
From: George Dunlap
> Sent: 16 April 2015 09:56
> On 04/15/2015 07:19 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 19:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe you should stop wasting all of our time and just tell us what
> >> you're thinking.
> >
> > I think you make me wasting my time.
>
On 04/16/2015 10:56 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
On 04/15/2015 07:19 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 19:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
Maybe you should stop wasting all of our time and just tell us what
you're thinking.
I think you make me wasting my time.
I already gave all the h
On 04/15/2015 07:19 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 19:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should stop wasting all of our time and just tell us what
>> you're thinking.
>
> I think you make me wasting my time.
>
> I already gave all the hints in prior discussions.
Righ
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 12:20 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > We already have netdev->gso_max_size and netdev->gso_max_segs
> > which are cached into sk->sk_gso_max_size & sk->sk_gso_max_segs
>
> It is quite dangerous to attempt tricks like this because a
> tc redirection or
Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> We already have netdev->gso_max_size and netdev->gso_max_segs
> which are cached into sk->sk_gso_max_size & sk->sk_gso_max_segs
It is quite dangerous to attempt tricks like this because a
tc redirection or netfilter nat could change the destination
device rendering such hi
On 04/15/2015 11:32 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 11:19 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
Well, I'm not sure that it is George and Jonathan themselves who don't
want to change a sysctl, but the customers who would have to tweak that
in their VMs?
Keep in mind some VM users install cust
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 11:19 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure that it is George and Jonathan themselves who don't
> want to change a sysctl, but the customers who would have to tweak that
> in their VMs?
Keep in mind some VM users install custom qdisc, or even custom TCP
sysctls.
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 19:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> Maybe you should stop wasting all of our time and just tell us what
> you're thinking.
I think you make me wasting my time.
I already gave all the hints in prior discussions.
Rome was not built in one day.
--
To unsubscribe from this l
On 04/15/2015 11:08 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 10:55 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
Have you tested this patch on a NIC without GSO/TSO ?
This would allow more than 500 packets for a single flow.
Hello bufferbloat.
Woudln't the fq_codel qdisc on that interface address that prob
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > Which means that max(2*skb->truesize, sk->sk_pacing_rate >>10) is
> > > *already* larger for Xen; that calculation mentioned
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 10:55 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> >
> > Have you tested this patch on a NIC without GSO/TSO ?
> >
> > This would allow more than 500 packets for a single flow.
> >
> > Hello bufferbloat.
>
> Woudln't the fq_codel qdisc on that interface address that problem?
Last time I check
On 04/15/2015 06:52 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:41 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> So you'd be OK with a patch like this? (With perhaps a better changelog?)
>>
>> -George
>>
>> ---
>> TSQ: Raise default static TSQ limit
>>
>> A new dynamic TSQ limit was introduced in c/s
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> > Which means that max(2*skb->truesize, sk->sk_pacing_rate >>10) is
> > *already* larger for Xen; that calculation mentioned in the comment is
> > *already* doing the right thing.
>
> Sigh.
>
>
Have you tested this patch on a NIC without GSO/TSO ?
This would allow more than 500 packets for a single flow.
Hello bufferbloat.
Woudln't the fq_codel qdisc on that interface address that problem?
rick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a m
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:41 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> So you'd be OK with a patch like this? (With perhaps a better changelog?)
>
> -George
>
> ---
> TSQ: Raise default static TSQ limit
>
> A new dynamic TSQ limit was introduced in c/s 605ad7f18 based on the
> size of actual packets and t
On 04/15/2015 06:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/15/2015 05:38 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> My thoughts that instead of these long talks you should guys read the
>>> code :
>>>
>>> /* TCP Small Queues :
>>>
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> Which means that max(2*skb->truesize, sk->sk_pacing_rate >>10) is
> *already* larger for Xen; that calculation mentioned in the comment is
> *already* doing the right thing.
Sigh.
1ms of traffic at 40Gbit is 5 MBytes
The reason for the c
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 05:38 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > My thoughts that instead of these long talks you should guys read the
> > code :
> >
> > /* TCP Small Queues :
> > * Control number of packets in qdisc/devices
On 04/15/2015 05:38 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> My thoughts that instead of these long talks you should guys read the
> code :
>
> /* TCP Small Queues :
> * Control number of packets in qdisc/devices to two packets
> / or ~1 ms.
> * This allows for
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 14:43 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 11:56 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >> Is the problem perhaps that netback/netfront delays TX completion?
> >> Would it be better to see if that can be addre
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 11:56 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Is the problem perhaps that netback/netfront delays TX completion?
>> Would it be better to see if that can be addressed properly, so that
>> the original purpose of the patch (fight
30 matches
Mail list logo
