From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 06D1B3B29E for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id s21so11791681ioa.1 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:16:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M24AM+asdjrDqhEiq5ttyHN6a9bnQW5YBSKf6EJ9DzI=; b=Oq3fRziv6TNNVWNoT09XHnKWXfJMPAxqrUV2ihgjoYrr2sl8DEsnWWYtrHaLWLK5// 818x02rV9+NTA1+prWFlveDJCkqTHmB7Z45Fpr/M6EhW+LVX6WR0HmIKUaEbYxoqVKSk Kym8VxFSvfZvuGh4wisZ49jR74FaxqefiRzTgFWQ0E/2DeD8XNdBEcmpyqfFMvLWd+/0 ajhBm9PwZRssSEZYyBP9z0zCXyFHJ2UXODJrclA9i89FW1BXkWLNo07t+GZEJtiQ/RWW pU4zBxWHo5EZ4qUtbyOz6wm/bWSnaeoEA5ivaq9zmYxFXDRT6vIhsgJ4VREcYYmYU5SK VQlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M24AM+asdjrDqhEiq5ttyHN6a9bnQW5YBSKf6EJ9DzI=; b=QWaJvanKW/V2rVkEN9W9LzM489e1LZ3zUSpBWh0VH22LjLeK+6QdfykPizFU23hC/o pQqPJ9qy8PR4QaXfY9CvA+hfZSIoc9EVoglsvpedfybeJKvuSM7X88MAEz8oF0vpzRSw TjgLHmLzYg/wwJMKia7FEEMhiJ5tXssE2RMLYgr3X9G4jIuX8GFhR/dgGKK0rijmiYGh oZtnQJLqjrho1/1f6AweCN70pRXE2HI5J6Ryw1c38QYKyKkev093gOTp8hN7i+swJNI4 BusBnpTN2EINBe5pkO7uf/EGIGGEbJRG60lsb/SdtJlz2usFVUt6Euw4nbjgvMhmW2DN Ewjg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXl3az6UIbXQY1jeTme+OY/7J/v6dW7OAyyN4Z0dLDZRvB9SsQh ObSFneGNPwGVuHsYfoKITIpBk6I2tiPy67nHK+c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyo6YsNXMvOoPyqAr8lpRL4rBwQtaerdwT88X4oRJ+YkwPW4JJlLJHRHAdYV660pFnCd4LwGn/gOF7jprZVD7s= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8a48:: with SMTP id o8mr13444668iom.287.1566479770294; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:16:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <384866b4-4c91-cf2c-c267-ee4036e5fbf7@newmedia-net.de> <87wof7sriw.fsf@toke.dk> <6782ec15-30eb-63b0-f54f-376c5e6b840b@newmedia-net.de> <87tvabsp99.fsf@toke.dk> <74bccc2b-b805-255f-b6a7-83ade9af6765@newmedia-net.de> <87r25fsn70.fsf@toke.dk> <54438C64-C613-438E-9CB9-6C6D0C5EAFA0@gmail.com> <87sgpvflo4.fsf@taht.net> <87wof6rf7t.fsf@toke.dk> <7656FCDE-C590-4B0C-B191-B9FAC928A762@gmail.com> <5eb4c395-c718-2d28-65a7-9762cf8d5bea@newmedia-net.de> <47AD5102-B66F-44A5-AADE-D167ECB94A61@gmx.de> <1d772664-b6cc-a528-9725-96a431032875@newmedia-net.de> <87v9uqea3x.fsf@taht.net> <87tvaap57q.fsf@toke.dk> <5bbd2b81-9846-3a7a-130c-0f59e04fd2d1@newmedia-net.de> In-Reply-To: <5bbd2b81-9846-3a7a-130c-0f59e04fd2d1@newmedia-net.de> From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:15:57 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sebastian Gottschall Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , Dave Taht , Cake List , Battle of the Mesh Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: [Cake] Wifi Memory limits in small platforms 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: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:16:11 -0000 It's very good to know how much folk have been struggling to keep things from OOMing on 32MB platforms. I'd like to hope that the unified memory management in cake (vs a collection of QoS qdiscs) and the new fq_codel for wifi stuff (cutting it down to 1 alloc from four) help, massively on this issue, but until today I was unaware of how much the field may have been patching things out. The default 32MB memory limits in fq_codel comes from the stressing about 10GigE networking from google. 4MB is limit in openwrt, which is suitable for ~1Gbit, and is sort of there due to 802.11ac's maximum (impossible to hit) of a txop that large. Something as small as 256K is essentially about 128 full size packets (and often, acks from an ethernet device's rx ring eat 2k). The structure of the new fq_codel for wifi subsystem is "one in the hardware, one ready to go, and the rest accumulating". I typically see about 13-20 packets in an aggregate. 256k strikes me as a bit small. I haven't checked, but does this patch still exist in openwrt/dd-wrt? It had helped a lot when under memory pressure from a lot of small packets. https://github.com/dtaht/cerowrt-3.10/blob/master/target/linux/generic/patches-3.10/657-qdisc_reduce_truesize.patch Arguably this could be made more aggressive, but it massively reduced memory burdens at the time I did it when flooding the device, or having lots of acks, and while it cost cpu it saved on ooming. There's two other dubious things in the fq_codel for wifi stack presently. Right now the codel target is set too high for p2p use (20ms, where 6ms seems more right), and it also flips up to a really high target and interval AND turns off ecn when there's more than a few stations available (rather than "active") - it's an overly conservative figure we used back when we had major issues with powersave and multicast that I'd hoped we could cut back to normal after we got another round of research funding and feedback from the field (which didn't happen, and we never got around to making it configurable, and being 25x better than it was before seemed "enough") I was puzzled at battlemesh as to why I had dropping at about 50ms delay rather than ecn, and thought it was something else, and this morning I'm thinking that folk have been reducing the memlimit to 256k rather....