Re: [Cake] signed-off-by requests

Probably there should be one from me - but I need to have built and tried it myself first, to be sure. There's still some new code I haven't gone over in detail yet. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net

Re: [Cake] [PATCH 0/3] Add Common Applications Kept Enhanced (sch_cake) qdisc

And git bisect gave: user@work-horse:~/CODE/sch_cake$ git bisect bad 031998e4eee58cbc706711eba8c54684f07306be is the first bad commit commit 031998e4eee58cbc706711eba8c54684f07306be Author: Dave Taht Date: Sun Nov 19 19:02:06 2017 -0800 sch_cake: make more checkpatch

Re: [Cake] cobalt through checkpatch

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > > >> On 23 Nov 2017, at 17:07, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes: >>> >>> Just did a PR for turning max_skblen (or whatever it is)

Re: [Cake] cobalt through checkpatch

> On 23 Nov 2017, at 17:07, Dave Taht wrote: > > Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes: >> >> Just did a PR for turning max_skblen (or whatever it is) to a u32….since >> there *are* super packets out there >64KB. > > There are? There are! Well there

Re: [Cake] cobalt through checkpatch

Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes: >> On 21 Nov 2017, at 21:59, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> >> You will want to pull and rebase on top of this. >> >> Are there any other patches still lying out of tree worth considering? > > Just did a PR for turning

Re: [Cake] lan keyword affects host fairness

Pete Heist writes: > On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Morton > wrote: > > This is most likely an interaction of the AQM with Linux' scheduling > latency. > > At the 'lan' setting, the time comstants are similar in magnitude

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

Sebastian Moeller writes: >> On Nov 23, 2017, at 17:21, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >>> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Pete Heist wrote: Thanks for

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 17:21, Dave Taht wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >> >>> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the overhead info. I used that in my latest tests.

[Cake] taking a break for thanksgiving holiday

I'm going to take a break from cleaning up the cobalt branch til sunday before putting together a "final" patch for net-next. (which should open up by sunday) If anyone else would like to tackle: * getting ack_drop into the drop statistics * updating the man page * figuring out hard_header_len

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Pete Heist wrote: > >> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >> >> Thanks for the overhead info. I used that in my latest tests. That makes me >> wonder if those overheads could be defaulted when Cake knows

Re: [Cake] cobalt through checkpatch

> On 21 Nov 2017, at 21:59, Dave Taht wrote: > > > You will want to pull and rebase on top of this. > > Are there any other patches still lying out of tree worth considering? Just did a PR for turning max_skblen (or whatever it is) to a u32….since there *are* super packets

Re: [Cake] lan keyword affects host fairness

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > This is most likely an interaction of the AQM with Linux' scheduling latency. > > At the 'lan' setting, the time comstants are similar in magnitude to the > delays induced by Linux itself, so congestion might be

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

Hi Pete, > On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:30, Pete Heist wrote: > > >> On Nov 23, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> >> Hi Pete, >> >> I should have mentioned "overhead 64 mpu 84" only make sense in >> combination with a shaper limit (well,

Re: [Cake] lan keyword affects host fairness

This is most likely an interaction of the AQM with Linux' scheduling latency. At the 'lan' setting, the time comstants are similar in magnitude to the delays induced by Linux itself, so congestion might be signalled prematurely. The flows will then become sparse and total throughput reduced,

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Pete Heist wrote: > > Thanks for the overhead info. I used that in my latest tests. That makes me > wonder if those overheads could be defaulted when Cake knows Ethernet is > being used with rate limiting? I know a goal is to make cake

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > I should have mentioned "overhead 64 mpu 84" only make sense in > combination with a shaper limit (well, they will make sure the cake > statistics will be more reflective of what is happening on

[Cake] lan keyword affects host fairness

It seems that the ‘lan’ keyword (and probably other lower rtt settings in general) may adversely impact host fairness in some cases. Is this to be expected? I set up a fairness test with rrul_be_nflows where one client has 2/2 TCP flows and the other has 8/8 TCP flows, then ran five tests:

Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization?

Hi Pete, > On Nov 22, 2017, at 19:43, Pete Heist wrote: > > >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >>> >>> Ok, at least a little crude testing with sar: >>>