From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mout.gmx.net",
	Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DDCE21F448
	for <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
	Fri,  3 Oct 2014 11:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([91.50.104.23]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M8leW-1XNzA22a2m-00CBI0;
	Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:02:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5Sc0ujnwv-foPQ=iD5Jgfi08RTOR4OCd4t_qbuJ6i2mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 20:02:28 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <69F8425E-5376-43D1-9EDF-8142A863E1BF@gmx.de>
References: <CAA93jw5Sc0ujnwv-foPQ=iD5Jgfi08RTOR4OCd4t_qbuJ6i2mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?windows-1252?Q?Dave_T=E4ht?= <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:5FIBNbzEuino2fCJFRNdW5plM8jMaWoXyBxN6xwPnvQiqrTALnH
	xJToNScI9Hk5QPJYivRgr0QhPEvD92IUH1gbqUwg7pVl5tbkFfjhSe77Czjn9RD1RTw7re/
	2JfSmtsr8OeT6mqKw68G4IvLSRXLDF2GZCYlLCuQKVVNDpFVdfoj8h096CVR7be48HqbOXv
	9RNn8U4l/25mE6rrbw7yw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Cc: Alpha Sparc <alphasparc@gmail.com>,
	openwrt-devel <openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org>,
	"cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] better ingress shaping somehow
X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
	<cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 18:03:03 -0000

Hi Dave,


On Oct 3, 2014, at 01:07 , Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
[cut a lot...]
> But: the real killer, on ingress shaping, is the call to skb_clone in
> sch_ingress->act_mirred path, I think.

	So I thought that we basically have around 50Mbps =
=93shaping-capability=94 on the wndrs which hew can distribute between =
egress and ingress, but if your analysis is correct wouldn=92t that mean =
that shaping egress is cheaper? (Not that this has much relevance in the =
real world due uplink << downlink asymmetry the ISPs push onto us =
endusers)

>=20
> If it were possible to have sch_cake replace sch_ingress, that would
> be a huge win, but following the call path for why that must be cloned
> has thus far resisted my archeological expertise. An network ninja
> is needed here....
[=85]

	;)=20

Best Regards
	Sebastian=