Re: [Cake] CAKE upstreaming - testers wanted, ACK filtering rescuers needed

[Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1351 bytes --]



> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:45, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> 
> For those who have not been following the discussion on the upstreaming
> patches, here's an update:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So please do test the current git version (cobalt branch, still). I'm
> planning to resubmit on Friday.

The two routers running that latest code survived the night which is a good sign.

I’ve sort of half been following the ‘discussion’, as ever the reaction from the kernel people makes it a place I never wish to look/contribute, ….. this from Eric has me disturbed "If you keep saying this old urban legend, I will NACK your patch.I am tired of people pretending GSO/TSO are bad for latencies.”

Genuine question:  I have a superpacket circa 64K, this is a lump of data in a tcp flow.  I have another small VOIP packet, it’s latency sensitive.  If I split the super packet into individual 1.5K packets as they would be on the wire, I can insert my VOIP packet at suitable place in time such that jitter targets are not exceeded.  If I don’t split the super packet, surely I have to wait till the end of the superpacket’s queue (for want of a better word) and possibly exceed my latency target.  That looks to me like ‘GSO/TSO’ is potentially bad for interflow latencies.  What don’t I understand here?




[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]