From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com (mail-wm1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DCA33B29E for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 08:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id 10so3264624wml.2 for ; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 05:33:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=creamfinance.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=Je/AjZObhZbPKtmzjDiINO273GMScBcb/DMhg01H8d8=; b=LhIS2NOaOLQY6EHEs2tmgaXYvghTgKrZ4DYqyt3kcaO4KH5vhaDcBjKQGBHob5JHv4 MQDbH1b83ME4MFBF1yL+zHNx3gNLaWlAIQ920Iskuiwmx4S5hp/KbzVStk0bNlEpVm3q L68TcNbxSptS1r//ZPnY8+XlilbT9vkHtOoQM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=Je/AjZObhZbPKtmzjDiINO273GMScBcb/DMhg01H8d8=; b=gz4K5pjraxPa9aHfqA9KlKjh1m/mpYc6wShnAVSYZxgAzY+1DsZUPpM8fgHe7thQwL +WyZKunRpG8ZnLQMUAE2NiwpowVlKpCyco9OaNI8jNzI+RgzQYwU1m8QAxPDRb+nlUrb ltMqQD3P1OlUNKCmLxAOiv2ZPP7lzGIhwNUroOgY1RqCe5BjmOGKgpomA3bhUARdhFvL Xb1fuv4gvFzABkWG2LwAiu8LxWi4ZS0NToz4EiZh8syhxCuIafYhhWL75y6hec+FlK4c ssk7H3IT606iSd0e9X/6/qVelW+nR1aNZeOmsngp2fwggBtujN4TPWyO53pCvl7qlr9X AksA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531SXuM072jVhLdb0TaYLTkUg+3tlB1Z3ck8+OKIG5+fPXeq0zWc KleOu9FU3IEXBdllU9PiTnFZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdpuHPfUidMTChK6u6JmbOda0OEetShDdTxmqQr4HGOq3DJjzBPOb+Q/owI3EVrPTuwO/9Mw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b0ca:: with SMTP id z193mr4801739wme.82.1604756013635; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.8.100.3] (ip-185.208.132.9.cf-it.at. [185.208.132.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y63sm6021249wmg.28.2020.11.07.05.33.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Nov 2020 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Thomas Rosenstein" To: "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" Cc: Bloat Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 14:33:32 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673) Message-ID: <29FB44CC-16FB-437A-BF53-53271C2C3AAD@creamfinance.com> In-Reply-To: References: <87imalumps.fsf@toke.dk> <871rh8vf1p.fsf@toke.dk> <81ED2A33-D366-42FC-9344-985FEE8F11BA@creamfinance.com> <87sg9ot5f1.fsf@toke.dk> <20201105143317.78276bbc@carbon> <11812D44-BD46-4CA4-BA39-6080BD88F163@creamfinance.com> <20201106121840.7959ae4b@carbon> <87blgaso84.fsf@toke.dk> <20201106135358.09f6c281@carbon> <20201106151324.5f506574@carbon> <1E70B6D2-1212-43FA-989A-03B657EEE2F2@creamfinance.com> <20201106211940.4c30ccc9@carbon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown Subject: Re: [Bloat] Router congestion, slow ping/ack times with kernel 5.4.60 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 13:33:35 -0000 On 7 Nov 2020, at 13:37, Thomas Rosenstein wrote: > > I have also tried to reproduce the issue with the kernel on a virtual > hyper-v machine, there I don't have any adverse effects. > But it's not 100% the same, since MASQ happens on it .. will > restructure a bit to get a similar representation > I reproduced something similar now, for the VM it only happens at 120 threads but I have every 5 or so seconds one packet that's delayed heavily: PING 10.10.0.69 (10.10.0.69) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.273 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.260 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.621 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.218 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=52.7 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=0.261 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=0.381 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=0.230 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=0.378 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=0.313 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=0.395 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=0.269 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=44.1 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=0.406 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=0.245 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=0.202 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=0.229 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=0.357 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=0.462 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=0.300 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=60.3 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=0.200 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=15.8 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=0.273 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=0.591 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=0.583 ms during that time the interface is loaded with 40 Mbits. this does not appear with 3.10 kernel: PING 10.10.0.69 (10.10.0.69) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.322 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.242 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.461 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.244 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.429 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=0.540 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=0.465 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=0.237 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=0.216 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=0.248 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=0.247 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=0.256 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=0.272 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=0.236 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=0.287 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=0.288 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=0.297 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=0.319 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=0.294 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=0.313 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=0.208 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=0.222 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=0.257 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=0.266 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=0.398 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=30 ttl=63 time=0.281 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=31 ttl=63 time=0.263 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=32 ttl=63 time=0.276 ms might be a hint that it's actually reproduceable.