From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com (mail-wm1-x344.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) (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 3B22F3B2A4 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 05:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id j125so11805254wmj.1 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 02:52:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=JeVAmlYo/k3ggBeKSZHC8hsfqk/LaCkbXErF39knxq0=; b=VOxHTT9MpMToWLuJcViJOBVerAJYeC0rHmc7Waz/U/1GtzTzbKxOMK9kYjEEIDPAgS KRWhUqKI3CDuqBbNlSCv92g8Yv9MpWIIJ1vA2TbqlZqKKa0j7po2wac7Dyrg01lLKCmL ZsuWWeWu4v9rLwLuFi85SzTqaYd+A0uVpYNaDGQ6UvKzTqn9oKdVcHSA9g9o0z0KIUB9 y9bJc6Dvl45ZE+fHBu9EDlbRuVRFcbNmijDhzAzhdjJcslopYPMCV6t52n3kbhK5/3Zi PKRGjBrbt4wVkD/X18PxfL/LlU4YRhmoL+nIQo5BReiDtIO0r9aG4xkkSWBHuFU8siG5 C0vA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=JeVAmlYo/k3ggBeKSZHC8hsfqk/LaCkbXErF39knxq0=; b=gkh81L8YAWR0HiINzIYS69LaWBaXEM731CRvlwdFEZEIxM37YQz8EEZYUipgpEFxcY lDVDdPlLgVLNNLQG/izCPagBHBxSATEGvmtPnWteB7AoqOd+PQHNzaukGmFQPlvt6ORS 1eEoc3rkmK8fLckuArjXJWd8MI0PeHpUnDO2PTPaZ/6wbpF6PnULhm3IbsKbw1nFM+Hg 3JjepJF49lEb1sJqyqOrkm8/h1Dt15USaYRZKjry1pfB3xtV5qg9WTr+CQC8kIqUpNBp huO0za70tmwli9AofZXl4E7rue7J5TkbGF9OypqtZOcgYSbj8pjPbjWB9rTFsA8q/2D0 PbEA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXOAggrW9oPj7dBd72zCKebzlBBdzEbNthcn4/szYgpp+DXGh0C Ky9msMo4V2stjo50uO61Hwr+eVg/sA0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaBXbcA1i9Vc8MdAj7xHdtmZulS8zBALJRj0IOujFlgvRFPNO3z+4lOc7VSuaehwFnQPhyXzA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ac87:: with SMTP id v129mr2946381wme.72.1551437538225; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 02:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tron.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v196sm11579154wmf.15.2019.03.01.02.52.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 02:52:17 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Heist Message-Id: <72193310-7502-47B8-9554-7F8F9FA23204@heistp.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD33C26D-055C-4F3A-A743-E820621416F8" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:52:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Cake] Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 10:52:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BD33C26D-055C-4F3A-A743-E820621416F8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks for the nudge... I just tested this on the original one-armed = router setup I encountered it on (3.16.7, routing from eth0 to = eth0.3300). The patch makes a big improvement over the original (which = was around 10/80): IP 1, 1 up: 47.0 Mbit IP 2, 8 up: 47.0 Mbit IP 1, 8 down: 46.7 Mbit IP 2, 1 down: 46.6 Mbit Curiously, if my one-armed router has cake applied on egress and ingress = of eth0.3300, instead of egress of eth0 and egress of eth0.3300 as = above, some reduction in fairness occurs, but only for the downstream = flows. This increases with the number of flows: IP 1, 1 up: 47.2 Mbit IP 2, 8 up: 47.2 Mbit IP 1, 8 down: 44.5 Mbit IP 2, 1 down: 48.7 Mbit IP 1, 1 up: 47.0 Mbit IP 2, 16 up: 47.0 Mbit IP 1, 16 down: 42.6 Mbit IP 2, 1 down: 50.3 Mbit IP 1, 1 up: 47.2 Mbit IP 2, 32 up: 47.0 Mbit IP 1, 32 down: 41.4 Mbit IP 2, 1 down: 51.3 Mbit It still happens when ether-vlan is used on the leaf qdiscs with vlan = traffic. That said, unless there=E2=80=99s an obvious reason for this that=E2=80=99= s fixable, I=E2=80=99m fine with how it is, considering the improvement. = :) > On Feb 28, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen via = Cake wrote: >=20 >=20 > From: Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen > Subject: Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch > Date: February 28, 2019 at 12:17:39 PM GMT+1 > To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >=20 >=20 > Hey everyone >=20 > The dual-mode fairness patch has been in the github repo for a few = weeks > now, and no one has complained. If no one continues to complain, I'll > submit it upstream tomorrow along with Kevin's fwmark patch. >=20 > So if anyone else wants to test, now would be a good time to do so :) >=20 > -Toke >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake --Apple-Mail=_BD33C26D-055C-4F3A-A743-E820621416F8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Thanks for the nudge... I just tested this on the original = one-armed router setup I encountered it on (3.16.7, routing from eth0 to = eth0.3300). The patch makes a big improvement over the original (which = was around 10/80):

IP = 1, 1 up: 47.0 Mbit
IP 2, 8 up: 47.0 = Mbit
IP 1, 8 down: 46.7 = Mbit
IP 2, 1 down: 46.6 = Mbit

Curiously, if my one-armed router has cake applied on egress = and ingress of eth0.3300, instead of egress of eth0 and egress of = eth0.3300 as above, some reduction in fairness occurs, but only for the = downstream flows. This increases with the number of flows:

IP 1, 1 up: 47.2 = Mbit
IP 2, 8 up: 47.2 Mbit
IP = 1, 8 down: 44.5 Mbit
IP 2, 1 down: 48.7 = Mbit

IP 1, 1 = up: 47.0 Mbit
IP 2, 16 up: 47.0 = Mbit
IP 1, 16 down: 42.6 Mbit
IP= 2, 1 down: 50.3 Mbit

IP 1, 1 up: 47.2 = Mbit
IP 2, 32 up: 47.0 Mbit
IP = 1, 32 down: 41.4 Mbit
IP 2, 1 down: 51.3 = Mbit

It still happens when ether-vlan is used on the leaf qdiscs = with vlan traffic.

That said, unless there=E2=80=99s an obvious reason for this = that=E2=80=99s fixable, I=E2=80=99m fine with how it is, considering the = improvement. :)

On Feb 28, 2019, at 12:17 PM, = Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen via Cake <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:


From: = Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = <toke@toke.dk>
Subject: Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch
Date: February 28, 2019 at 12:17:39 PM GMT+1
To: = cake@lists.bufferbloat.net


Hey everyone

The = dual-mode fairness patch has been in the github repo for a few weeks
now, and no one has complained. If no one continues to = complain, I'll
submit it upstream tomorrow along with = Kevin's fwmark patch.

So if anyone else = wants to test, now would be a good time to do so :)

-Toke


_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake

= --Apple-Mail=_BD33C26D-055C-4F3A-A743-E820621416F8--