Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler
@ 2013-11-05 13:22 Maciej Soltysiak
  2013-11-05 13:39 ` Sebastian Moeller
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Maciej Soltysiak @ 2013-11-05 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

Hi list,

3.12 landed with TSO sizing and FQ scheduler. Is there significant
benefit of trying to port these to Cero's 3.10 ?

I'm assuming we're not going head on to 3.12 for kernel base for cero as of yet?

Best regards,
Maciej

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler
  2013-11-05 13:22 [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler Maciej Soltysiak
@ 2013-11-05 13:39 ` Sebastian Moeller
  2013-11-17 22:25   ` Dave Taht
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Moeller @ 2013-11-05 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Maciej Soltysiak; +Cc: cerowrt-devel

Hi Maciej,



On Nov 5, 2013, at 14:22 , Maciej Soltysiak <maciej@soltysiak.com> wrote:

> Hi list,
> 
> 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… Also, IIRC, we disable TSO on cerowrt by default (though TSO sizing might mean that this decision could be revisited).

> 
> 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

> 
> Best regards,
> Maciej
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler
  2013-11-05 13:39 ` Sebastian Moeller
@ 2013-11-17 22:25   ` Dave Taht
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2013-11-17 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sebastian Moeller; +Cc: cerowrt-devel

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 14:22 , Maciej Soltysiak <maciej@soltysiak.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi list,
> > 
> > 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… Also, IIRC, we disable TSO on cerowrt by default (though TSO sizing might mean that this decision could be revisited).
> 
> > 

Of interest in backporting FQ is to be able to analyze its performance
on routed streams vs fq_codel. It uses a finer grained FQ, on a 4 tuple, 
but does not do queue management, so I expect the results will end up looking
like SFQ or QFQ with bigger buffers - good fairness but catastrophic effects on 
fat streams, and a lot more collisions.

This is a slide I didn't get to show at ietf, showing what SFQ + longest
queue drop looks like.

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/results_3.12/3.12/ecn/rtt_fair_download=5500-upload=20000-noecn-sfq-target=5ms-delay=240ms-2.svg

vs fq_codel

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/results_3.12/3.12/ecn/rtt_fair_download=5500-upload=20000-ecn-fq_codel-target=5ms-delay=240ms-2.svg

vs pie

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/results_3.12/3.12/ecn/rtt_fair_download=5500-upload=20000-ecn-pie-target=20ms-delay=240ms-2.svg

I expect the FQ scheduler to crash a teeny router with its defaults also...

Looking at the cpu usage would be interesting too...

I'm tempted to backport it, I am! I am!


> > 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.

I intend to freeze on some variant of 3.10 for quite some time, yes.

At the moment I don't really have time to backport the new stuff
to cerowrt, I am starting a new job (yea!), and just want to make cero stable
ASAP so I can ramp up on that. 

> 
> 
> Best
> 	Sebastian
> 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Maciej
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-17 22:25 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-11-05 13:22 [Cerowrt-devel] TSO sizing and FQ scheduler Maciej Soltysiak
2013-11-05 13:39 ` Sebastian Moeller
2013-11-17 22:25   ` Dave Taht

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox