From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com (mail-bk0-f43.google.com
	[209.85.214.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82129201261
	for <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue,  4 Sep 2012 08:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty15 with SMTP id y15so4051466bkt.16
	for <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date
	:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=1vuqFFOJdRQZbPPa10c66+VudjJY71qtD1nPWDR3LWI=;
	b=gw2BF7G6nfPTsvD+uPmj6vWC8T5o+nh3HMVgvFvp+VG+XstfVLU3YLByk/+DF3RVs5
	K+kk7KMQRJ8L1zY93WgM7P0a2Cs5+AXIjhThyiyxEZlnjANAlEcsw74E/ejtTg7fhbgN
	ytxiX5jD8kxaKi5YvH3eIBvlfOUdMn2/DjJEZA8QQfKbgCCMcYZe2CtRMD+l8AUrvdwa
	6KXQ0XYoxsZIVRfmhxg7FUSfV/4xojR2No5uYeDxoGRGKXo2lK0g4BVFhoFCE0WWdapj
	L2RN3b1Y+xmDxP/c+vSYt4iJWMr4KXYktplit5+toTcM5jg+AJVinFtlFVaMXmD3lKtW
	dkAw==
Received: by 10.204.9.194 with SMTP id m2mr8179808bkm.132.1346773154545;
	Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.142.158] ([74.125.121.33])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y20sm10779590bkv.11.2012.09.04.08.39.11
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C18E243-42BC-46F0-A336-EAD9BC881C45@gmail.com>
References: <1346396137.2586.301.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1346421031.2591.34.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1346421466.2591.38.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<CAK6E8=cwpq0MVK6fcrOa=wTX237xQiVP2xzh0aX-AtuSmzt-sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1346503884.7996.65.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<CAB_+Fg5xPRqEZNdH0mYogmm4LitMvycSLB-X1_7ryn4RY9FvSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1C18E243-42BC-46F0-A336-EAD9BC881C45@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:39:09 +0200
Message-ID: <1346773149.13121.44.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	Tomas Hruby <thruby@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFC v2] fq_codel : interval servo on hosts
X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions <codel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel>
List-Post: <mailto:codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:39:17 -0000

On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 18:25 +0300, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> I think that in most cases, a long RTT flow and a short RTT flow on
> the same interface means that the long RTT flow isn't bottlenecked
> here, and therefore won't ever build up a significant queue - and that
> means you would want to track over the shorter interval. Is that a
> reasonable assumption?
> 

This would be reasonable, but if we have a shorter interval, this means
we could drop packets of the long RTT flow sooner than expected.

Thats because the drop_next value is setup on the previous packet, and
not based on the 'next packet'

Re-evaluating drop_next at the right time would need more cpu cycles.