From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com
	[IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BCF21F21C
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 24 May 2015 21:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so44776023lbb.3
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 24 May 2015 21:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=VVHtUbeGKPOYu8HaXhM7YErayYrvJ8FdgOEhLKyyUsg=;
	b=XHygN6VAtDkgAFn1v9rWeEYb1ncCsbhwyIvfD4caSIoCyYSW67Tt2KqkVYDgGMcZsJ
	dXQK1I1J9u3aw+1d/qVxWQ73okAEnJbkIsWgCS4m7QaTviXI547uzupZADN6eewq4ohc
	PGOBoH1IrhOHJUNwdFujieqC7bbIpLvByAoSbSN4JMKQw/x+CmRoG5bTqCQIVpXAzwuE
	s6RifupPrQ7qBQrxqMQGxPr2RK1fcHTnzkUA7cGLd0GvwOT8bh/b5sYGL1cTtor+kZlv
	DTxZ8vbViLeJVIYXR/lXkD2nEbmJ7z0XPac/6FYajY3NV2Ovv8YTcAji3Rc/8StKuE5h
	ugKg==
X-Received: by 10.112.234.163 with SMTP id uf3mr16917892lbc.9.1432529802877;
	Sun, 24 May 2015 21:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (37-136-70-24.rev.dnainternet.fi.
	[37.136.70.24])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jl4sm2151643lbc.14.2015.05.24.21.56.40
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sun, 24 May 2015 21:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw6MCB3YLPSyV7Y0M3GjBD2yHS2xqizFXC+Czpp0zZQtkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 07:56:35 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67EE7961-8978-4403-AC1A-1157F008795D@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw7RushJDaSpZZ0kwcqxBqge5=DJo4=tLWkeUXz91OB1Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA93jw6MCB3YLPSyV7Y0M3GjBD2yHS2xqizFXC+Czpp0zZQtkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] peeling at sub-1ms
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 04:57:14 -0000


> On 23 May, 2015, at 20:47, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I would be happier if we peeled at 250usec rather than 1ms. At
> 110Mbit that is 2 packets, but at a gig quite a lot.
>=20
> (selfishly, that is the speed I am running at while watching
> dslreports misbehave)
>=20
> The second problem is that the default peeling behavior somehow should
> work while at line rate, whether the rate be 10mbit or a gbit.
>=20
> another option is when we know we have lots of flows, to peel more.

Since it doesn=E2=80=99t seem to have completely blown up in your face, =
I can assume that I was on basically the right track, and do a bit more =
refinement on the peeling code.  There probably is some room for =
efficiency improvements.

If I do some pre-computation at shaper configuration time, I think I can =
efficiently handle the cases you mention.

 - Jonathan Morton