From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] overheads or rate calculation changed?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:41:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8FB76CCB-1AAB-42F6-AEF8-D0D8A438EA91@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3b255661-1b16-cc29-958f-bbbedbcbab9e@gmail.com>
Hi Andy,
> On Dec 23, 2017, at 00:38, Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>> On 21 Dec, 2017, at 2:54 am, Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> refactor cake_advance_shaper and ack_filter
>>>
>>> cake_advance_shaper now returns a modified len argument to
>>> reflect cake_overhead.
>>> skb_ack_filter variable replaced with ack
>> Fixed. At one point cake_advance_shaper() was still getting a packet length with overhead correction already applied, and was then applying it a second time.
>
> Thanks, seems good now, well, as it was before anyway :-)
>
> Still a bit confusing for users having to look at max_len in stats to judge what overhead to use if they know what over ip they want.
>
> Maybe some hint in the man page about turn off gro and look at max_len would help when using raw.
>
> IIRC this was discussed before, I think conclusion was it's the kernel/ppp being different/wrong sometimes in what it reports to cake.
>
> My specific case is pppoe where I need IP + 34. I can see 1500 as max_len, which = IP length so raw overhead 34 is correct.
>
> On a pure eth to get the same I need raw overhead 20 as max_len is 1514.
>
> This is the (confusing) output from pppoe
>
> ./tc qdisc add dev ppp0 handle 1:0 root cake bandwidth 19690kbit raw overhead 34 diffserv4 dual-srchost nat rtt 200ms
>
> qdisc cake 1: dev ppp0 root refcnt 2 bandwidth 19690Kbit diffserv4 dual-srchost nat rtt 200.0ms noatm overhead 56 via-ethernet total_overhead 56 hard_header_len 22
This is still broken, the overhead the should just be 34, and hard_header_len should be 0, even though for pppoe 22 is not completely wrong (14 + 8). I currently see the same with PPPoE+VLAN I get 26. So either that is a change in current cake or the kernel actually started to report a more precise hard_header_len...
> Sent 776346756 bytes 883288 pkt (dropped 284882, overlimits 1429302 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> memory used: 4196096b of 4Mb
> capacity estimate: 19690Kbit
> Bulk Best Effort Video Voice
> thresh 1230Kbit 19690Kbit 9845Kbit 4922Kbit
> target 14.8ms 10.0ms 10.0ms 10.0ms
> interval 204.8ms 200.0ms 200.0ms 200.0ms
> pk_delay 186us 1.6ms 0us 112us
> av_delay 11us 94us 0us 4us
> sp_delay 1us 4us 0us 4us
> pkts 1160 1166876 0 134
> bytes 457795 1202631653 0 10176
> way_inds 0 3813 0 0
> way_miss 1126 10503 0 3
> way_cols 0 0 0 0
> drops 0 284882 0 0
> marks 0 0 0 0
> ack_drop 0 0 0 0
> sp_flows 0 1 0 0
> bk_flows 0 1 0 0
> un_flows 0 0 0 0
> max_len 746 1500 0 76
>
>
>
> On eth raw overhead 34 gives different results, only seeing max_len gives the clue to take 14 to get IP + 34.
>
> tc qdisc add dev enp6s0 handle 1:0 root cake bandwidth 19690kbit raw overhead 34
>
> qdisc cake 1: dev enp6s0 root refcnt 2 bandwidth 19690Kbit diffserv3 triple-isolate rtt 100.0ms noatm overhead 48 via-ethernet total_overhead 48 hard_header_len 14
This looks like expected, the in-kernel overhead is added to the specified overhead, just like in the past. I really really wished cake would report the packet size before and _after_ its overhead addition making sanity checking much easier. BTW tc's stab might be useful as an external check... I also wonder whether the kernel's behaviour in regards to ppp interfaces changed between kernel 4.4 and newer ones, I see the same weirdness:
root@router:~# uname -a
Linux router 4.9.67 #0 Sun Dec 17 11:53:32 2017 mips GNU/Linux
excerpt from tc -s:
qdisc cake 800f: dev pppoe-wan root refcnt 2 bandwidth 9545Kbit diffserv3 dual-srchost nat rtt 100.0ms noatm overhead 34 via-ethernet total_overhead 34 hard_header_len 26 mpu 64
I note that hard_header_len 26 sort of matches the situation on the ground:
Mine:
14 (SRCMAC, DSTMAC, ethertype) + 8 (PPP, PPPOE), + 4 (VLAN) = 26
Yours:
14 (SRCMAC, DSTMAC, ethertype) + 8 (PPP, PPPOE) = 22
I guess I should try with different kernels and recent sch_cake...
Best Regards
Sebastian
> Sent 24102094 bytes 15934 pkt (dropped 1, overlimits 31841 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> memory used: 27Kb of 4Mb
> capacity estimate: 19690Kbit
> Bulk Best Effort Voice
> thresh 1230Kbit 19690Kbit 4922Kbit
> target 14.8ms 5.0ms 5.0ms
> interval 109.8ms 100.0ms 100.0ms
> pk_delay 0us 1.7ms 0us
> av_delay 0us 1.7ms 0us
> sp_delay 0us 229us 0us
> pkts 0 15935 0
> bytes 0 24103608 0
> way_inds 0 0 0
> way_miss 0 4 0
> way_cols 0 0 0
> drops 0 1 0
> marks 0 0 0
> ack_drop 0 0 0
> sp_flows 0 0 0
> bk_flows 0 1 0
> un_flows 0 0 0
> max_len 0 1514 0
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-23 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-18 20:32 Andy Furniss
2017-12-21 0:54 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-22 6:38 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-22 7:58 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
[not found] ` <CAJq5cE3e-CbJ8X_Bpu3AhwbVmq-yD89HGe7rSNMTYqj+KSaBUg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-12-22 10:00 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-22 12:58 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2017-12-22 15:55 ` Dave Taht
2017-12-22 23:38 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-23 9:41 ` Sebastian Moeller [this message]
2017-12-23 9:59 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-23 12:55 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 13:11 ` Ryan Mounce
2017-12-23 14:21 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 21:03 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 21:20 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-24 10:34 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2017-12-24 10:39 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-24 10:46 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2017-12-24 12:19 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-24 12:14 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-06 20:44 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-01-06 22:46 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-07 0:33 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-01-07 8:19 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-07 15:21 ` Jonathan Morton
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=8FB76CCB-1AAB-42F6-AEF8-D0D8A438EA91@gmx.de \
--to=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=adf.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
/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