From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pz0-f48.google.com (mail-pz0-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CB92002A9 for ; Sat, 5 May 2012 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dadz8 with SMTP id z8so1776043dad.7 for ; Sat, 05 May 2012 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qTOA9oycBsJVsKh4aqqMhfix9Z0ImOxcv0RtzFlOupg=; b=bpeBI0vAJ58KM0x7Zds/rIjSO67LvpL9rB6L0hrpddLCc9cQ2FAqvtbTXED9cYkxFx 7f6R9cJ6U+608E6fqLQlDmBEixpjDTWJ4vpO+9jySHP8HP8CaQovWPDSFTauaEZsc1Dp w7MOB8U2oBxam/p4/SOw8W8YczPQWkhE1yKQCwXJieqPOvts3TzqFg/oj6LaTpdQoJ19 M/00OPfMPUwC5aU30iWF+KRwr6NTJbABkphKmxa2Qgj9+RdxO3iTyP41k5THHIJi+yWW rYxYF2YEAYGepwOOZo9NrAZ+ZNbPvxOhmLkmNVR9Oq07u3gMeDKYXhSV30Dw7kPtYpTE TRBw== Received: by 10.68.225.201 with SMTP id rm9mr10747598pbc.47.1336256104428; Sat, 05 May 2012 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4f8:3:203::c001? ([2001:4f8:3:203::c001]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm12949413pbr.32.2012.05.05.15.15.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 05 May 2012 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FA5A665.4090708@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 15:15:01 -0700 From: dave taht User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet References: <1336217671-20384-1-git-send-email-dave.taht@bufferbloat.net> <1336218794.3752.508.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1336229343.3752.516.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1336249251.3752.558.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1336250168.3752.560.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1336252281.3752.561.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FA597C0.7090206@gmail.com> <1336252832.3752.563.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FA5A3B8.7020808@gmail.com> <1336255783.3752.573.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1336255783.3752.573.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?B?RGF2ZSBUw6RodA==?= Subject: Re: [Codel] [PATCH v5] pkt_sched: codel: Controlled Delay AQM X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 22:15:05 -0000 On 05/05/2012 03:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 15:03 -0700, dave taht wrote: > >> Maybe on your arch, but highly doubtful on a 680Mhz mips that isn't even >> superscalar. >> > CPU are fast, memory is slow. > >> I'd prefer to leave it in and be able to compile it out, and actually >> measure the difference. > You optimize the case where there is no need to optimize (small queue) > > I can see count bigger than 100000 with 20 concurrent netperf At what speeds? Are you testing 10GigE? I'm dying to know what happens there... If I could encourage you to ratchet down to 2 or 100Mbit it would be easier to get comparable results. I like using the ethtool trick for 10 and 100Mbit as that leaves just bql and the qdisc in the mix. We've discussed elsewhere some of the issues with htb. Also I'd had an 'interesting' result at 2Mbit that I haven't had time to duplicate, which I'm going to do now on mainstream hardware. > This makes no sense to have a cache so big. concur, which is why I'd also asked how big it got, and how fast you were running > Or there is a bug in codel hmm. > > >