From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1FF021F0B3 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 05:39:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from eap106241.extern.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.106.241]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LaoMe-1W1j4Z2krg-00kNyO for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:39:27 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:39:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9121FF2E-E01C-4FDD-A374-F1CB4EED5FAB@gmx.de> References: To: Maciej Soltysiak X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:dwmFpOfCyDzcIBfIF/irIyn5VZU9KJII8Q6+oyJJ1199xtIjj1r cm7EdmJU3r70wuTZXImjtKlCfhNkYYAllkSJs0m3wKUC4eIHgAIRwCR7WLmpv/y8udjuPef DAjkpaThU0UwiFPEeroTvH1ckLTcBsMou18WONsePtptzKEXhgnheUX9wdXx0ki68/EVu8p 28Jd7U0LVFiUHLK6dt32Q== Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:39:31 -0000 Hi Maciej, On Nov 5, 2013, at 14:22 , Maciej Soltysiak = wrote: > Hi list, >=20 > 3.12 landed with TSO sizing and FQ scheduler. Is there significant > benefit of trying to port these to Cero's 3.10 ? According to Eric Dumazet, these two help for flows terminating = on the device in question, not for flows just passing through the = device. So unless your cerowrt router offers lots of network services it = most likely will not profit from these features=85 Also, IIRC, we = disable TSO on cerowrt by default (though TSO sizing might mean that = this decision could be revisited). >=20 > I'm assuming we're not going head on to 3.12 for kernel base for cero = as of yet? I would hope for 3.10 to be the kernel for the forceable future, = due to its promised 2 years? maintenance window. Best Sebastian >=20 > Best regards, > Maciej > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel