From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 6/7] sch_cake: Add overhead compensation support to the rate shaper
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 18:08:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6CAF0E83-68A8-450B-9C78-F00C81B037A4@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k1sm13e1.fsf@toke.dk>
Hi Toke,
> On May 2, 2018, at 17:30, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>
> Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> writes:
>
>>> On May 2, 2018, at 17:11, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> + /* The last segment may be shorter; we ignore this, which means
>>> + * that we will over-estimate the size of the whole GSO segment
>>> + * by the difference in size. This is conservative, so we live
>>> + * with that to avoid the complexity of dealing with it.
>>> + */
>>> + len = shinfo->gso_size + hdr_len;
>>> + }
>>
>>
>> Hi Toke,
>>
>> so I am on the fence with this one, as the extreme case is having a
>> super packet consisting out of 1 full-MTU packet plus a tiny leftover
>> in that case we pay a 50% bandwidth sacrifice which seems a bit high.
>> Nowm I have no real feling how likely this full MTU plus 64 byte
>> packet issue is in real life, but in the past I often saw maximum
>> packetsizes of around 3K bytes on my router indicating that having a
>> sup packet consisting just out of two segments might not be that rare.
>> So is there an easy way for me to measure the probability of seeing
>> that issue?
>>
>> I am all for sacrificing some bandwidth for better latency under load,
>> but few users will be happy with a 50% loss of bandwidth...
>
> Well, in most cases such GSO segments will be split anyway (we split if
> <= 1 Gbps). So this inaccuracy will only hit someone who enables the
> shaper *and sets it to a rate rate > 1Gbps*. Which is not a deployment
> mode we have seen a lot of, I think?
Oh, I agree with that rationale; I was still under the impression that we want to go back to a (configurable) serialization delay based segmentation threshold and then this might become an issue (especially on puny routers will profit from the reduced routing cost* of GSO/GRO). Also I fear that 1Gbps service will become an issue rather sooner than later, even though I would assume that then dual segment super-packets should really be rare...
>
> But sure, in principle you are right; I have no idea how to measure the
> probability, though. We could conceivably add another statistic, but,
> well, not sure it's worth it... I am certainly not going to do it ;)
Again, I agree without proof that this is more than a theoretical issue, let's ignore this for now (especially since this is going to interfere with ATM encapsulation, but on ATM the bandwidth should always merit a segmentataion of supers (sorry, ISPs cake is not designed as the customer facing shaper on the DSLAM ;) ))
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> -Toke
*) I guess the kernel's routing codsts pales in comparison with the actual shaping cost, so this might be a bad idea.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-02 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-02 15:10 [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 0/7] sched: Add Common Applications Kept Enhanced (cake) qdisc Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 1/7] " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-03 5:05 ` kbuild test robot
2018-05-03 5:05 ` [Cake] [PATCH] sched: fix semicolon.cocci warnings kbuild test robot
2018-05-03 15:24 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 1/7] sched: Add Common Applications Kept Enhanced (cake) qdisc David Miller
2018-05-03 15:28 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 2/7] sch_cake: Add ingress mode Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 3/7] sch_cake: Add optional ACK filter Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-03 8:26 ` kbuild test robot
2018-05-03 12:40 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 4/7] sch_cake: Add NAT awareness to packet classifier Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 5/7] sch_cake: Add DiffServ handling Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 6/7] sch_cake: Add overhead compensation support to the rate shaper Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:25 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-05-02 15:30 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 16:08 ` Sebastian Moeller [this message]
2018-05-02 16:15 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-05-02 15:11 ` [Cake] [PATCH net-next v7 7/7] sch_cake: Conditionally split GSO segments Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6CAF0E83-68A8-450B-9C78-F00C81B037A4@gmx.de \
--to=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox