From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D32721F547 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446572019; bh=sNAd9d7H0BCgK1cgykdRmqv3WLTqfEKE5F/eXFdielw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=iZtpK0DBJStlklm7XevJmdc9bVry3Yw8DJv0cmldgcgU8TrBNrhcDBMage3Tv0Myx 49q3E6YmlJdhypmU27IJTaV2uNR87HgTGCBNrT9M7SafL2kstrIhvhfn+qnMPUmJXP OdLF7zUTsaE8p3CRKWZRGsQE975K1VzA1ejrTLkY= Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D03AD4E6C85; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:33:38 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Jonathan Morton References: <87pozspckj.fsf@toke.dk> <6A2609D9-7747-487B-9484-ECC69C50DE96@gmx.de> <874mh3pai9.fsf@toke.dk> <50C2A7B7-1B81-41E1-B534-CA449296FE77@gmail.com> <87a8qvc8tz.fsf@toke.dk> <328DEF4F-F149-42C5-920E-53D16DCF544C@gmx.de> <87si4natbf.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:33:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Morton's message of "Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:31:00 +0200") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87fv0nasy5.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Long-RTT broken again X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:34:04 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: >> Which is the same data that Cake uses. Hmm, weird=E2=80=A6 > > No, Cake uses skb->truesize for this particular purpose. It uses > qdisc_pkt_len(skb) only for timing purposes. Ah, right. Well, I would consider that a bug. If we're doing a "max queue size" it should (conceptually) be in packet data units. A hard memory limit may make sense *in addition*, but then that should be a separate safeguard IMO. -Toke