From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot0-x232.google.com (mail-ot0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::232]) (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 7D2C73B29E for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ot0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 32so2921659oth.3 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:09:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SEV/svZykLExnx2RJaSfE99RyYb4bf78ee//PiBHeKk=; b=mw+HBAMq0qcw8uAuoqvZHoa3wfiH5rX+MDea+T2X9Tf/eWHUj3fmN9SX647BbagJE5 SCZnrrmMcFJoME21AdfpVQo65MMf/MFEAJJTVOL8d6htKix0fxyYy8PzutRJx7LTBdpk k4o8xewni9CEuZWD+3qOiZDhSKasl0RR8NTzAqt6R3imFOiHZRB/a5wgz7duHepw4Cvq /j7tXn3wtwoPkG6VRKEXeRk9fg0WeR12HxU8gRMr++WGcZNyPgHQu+el8jPGMpl2RGIh WNva8xwb7WaKWWe3iFkaxFA7QCp7FylisowhNIIxTDuiKaD57cbjfy5tK5+kWqz9guL7 mF4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=SEV/svZykLExnx2RJaSfE99RyYb4bf78ee//PiBHeKk=; b=He2TpMZAn2VFnZW+Nd9O1fR/aBv8qxRGI9VgT2N7G+SDgBWE87ICNQfzxeQZfNYjqE g4nFnLEkCe7nWe9P8CzBDSzLJf8I4j+PgrV5NJ6bFNtchIHhq43NQc/PxRRJ3XLrQnDs AkS8l1QGWWXYubgkfedJXj/r2RiN8iECygDd7khdnl+9NtRFMfSHkGeuYbsXEwcaxjwT n6KnHmY+l6/VTb4/Mj8CtnIaIee+75fGA8jpjsw6qEZz8BYJ6BNCaKUKm2Yqr4n64Ktp vpSshy8pvZIHy2jBGNIyME6imSThxXnFeLo99OvA5JkM0BZ3cLEv2U78c47Op1hqIMXw //ew== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLoV2ZaA+nPcBwLn/jVmVyHVfWxC1hI7Y/SrCW+fzffpqxLGZ702QF8QXfpsFfsmoaRxTLrO/Q47ordLw== X-Received: by 10.157.1.229 with SMTP id e92mr23027110ote.250.1485378548861; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:09:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.1.21 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:09:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <58D7E8D3-5661-4126-80D9-2F2D4E478B10@gmail.com> From: Hans-Kristian Bakke Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03c39ac310c00546f1a450 Subject: [Bloat] Fwd: Initial tests with BBR in kernel 4.9 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:09:09 -0000 --94eb2c03c39ac310c00546f1a450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thank you. Do I understand correctly that fq is really just hit and miss within a VM in general then? Is there no advantage to the fair queing part even with a low-precision clock? On 25 January 2017 at 22:00, Jonathan Morton wrote: > > > On 25 Jan, 2017, at 22:54, Hans-Kristian Bakke > wrote: > > > > 4. Do BBR _only_ work with fq pacing or could fq_codel be used as a > replacement? > > Without pacing, it is not BBR as specified. Currently, only the fq qdisc > implements pacing. > > AFAIK, you need a working HPET for pacing to work correctly. A > low-precision timer would be a good explanation for low throughput under > pacing. > > - Jonathan Morton > > --94eb2c03c39ac310c00546f1a450 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you.

Do I understand correctly that fq is really just hit and miss within a= VM in general then? Is there no advantage to the fair queing part even wit= h a low-precision clock?

On 25 January 20= 17 at 22:00, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wro= te:

> On 25 Jan, 2017, at 22:54, Hans-Kristian Bakke <hkbakke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 4. Do BBR _only_ work with fq pacing or could fq_codel be used as a re= placement?

Without pacing, it is not BBR as specified.=C2=A0 Currently, only th= e fq qdisc implements pacing.

AFAIK, you need a working HPET for pacing to work correctly.=C2=A0 A low-pr= ecision timer would be a good explanation for low throughput under pacing.<= br>
=C2=A0- Jonathan Morton



--94eb2c03c39ac310c00546f1a450--